Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the city of ORG in GPE .

At the material time the applicant and her family lived in PERSON , in a private household comprising QUANTITY houses at CARDINAL FAC .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s son PERSON , born in DATE , his wife , PERSON , the applicant ’s son - in - law , PERSON , born in DATE , her daughter PERSON and their neighbour ORG ( also spelled GPE ) , who had come to visit them , were at home . The applicant was away and therefore her account of the events of that date was based on eyewitness statements of her family members .

At TIME a group of CARDINAL federal servicemen arrived at the applicant ’s household in CARDINAL armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) . The identification number of CARDINAL of the vehicles was CARDINAL , whilst the other carriers had no such numbers on them . The servicemen in camouflage uniforms were armed with AK-CARDINAL machine guns , ORG carabines and pistols . They had masks on , except for CARDINAL officers in command . Those CARDINAL officers had portable radio transmitters . All the servicemen spoke NORP without any accent . CARDINAL of them entered the courtyard of the applicant ’s household whilst QUANTITY others stayed near the APCs .

The servicemen broke down the door of CARDINAL of the houses , in which there were the applicant ’s son , her son - in - law and ORG , and searched the house , without presenting any documents to authorise their actions . According to the applicant , during the search the soldiers asked if the CARDINAL men had drugs , arms or GPE dollars . They also allegedly demanded gold and money .

The applicant ’s daughter and PERSON wife , who were in the other house at that moment , heard the noise , ran out to the courtyard and saw CARDINAL or CARDINAL servicemen there and several other soldiers inside the house with their relatives . The servicemen prevented the women from entering that house . They were hostile and aggressive . Some time later the servicemen left the house and forced PERSON , PERSON and ORG outside . They ordered the CARDINAL men to stand against the wall and checked their passports .

According to the applicant , the servicemen spent TIME in her courtyard and then left , having taken her son , her son - in - law and ORG away . They told the applicant ’s daughter that they would check the CARDINAL men ’s identities and release them . The servicemen then put the applicant ’s relatives and ORG into the APCs and drove off in the direction of the centre of ORG . The applicant submitted that the only road to the centre of PERSON had been blocked by a federal military check - point , but the APCs openly passed through it .

The applicant further relied on ORG statements to the effect that the CARDINAL men had been taken to LOC of the Interior of PERSON ( Старопромысловский временный отдел внутренних дел г. Грозного – “ the LOC ” ) and interrogated . The interrogators did not introduce themselves or disclose what public bodies they represented . The CARDINAL men were allegedly told that there was a report stating that they had been detained at the Staropromyslovskiy military check - point for insulting federal servicemen .

The applicant ’s CARDINAL relatives and ORG spent TIME in a cell , along with another person . On DATE at TIME PERSON and PERSON were taken away from LOC in a ORG all - terrain vehicle . ORG was released TIME and returned home . PERSON and PERSON remain missing to date .

According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE “ unidentified persons armed with firearms apprehended PERSON , PERSON and ORG in a private household and delivered them to PERSON . The DATE ORG was released , whilst PERSON and PERSON were taken away by unidentified persons in an unknown direction ” .

On DATE , immediately after the detention of PERSON and PERSON , the applicant ’s daughter - in - law informed the applicant of the incident . Thereafter the applicant ’s daughter - in - law went to her brother - in - law , PERSON , who was an officer of ORG of ORG ( ORG по Чеченской Республике – “ ORG of the ORG ” ) . The latter attempted to pursue the APCs in his personal car , but did not find them . He learnt from servicemen at the check - point near the applicant ’s house that the APCs had passed there at CARDINAL a.m. DATE .

On DATE the applicant went to the prosecutor ’s office of GPE ( прокуратура Чеченской PERSON DATE “ ORG of the Chechen Republic ” ) and informed them about the detention of her relatives .

Thereafter she visited the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD . An officer whose name was PERSON told her that her CARDINAL relatives had been taken away in an ORG all - terrain vehicle by CARDINAL military officers of LOC , PERSON He also allegedly told the applicant that those CARDINAL officers must have delivered her son and son - in - law to either the main federal military base at GPE or the town of ORG and promised her that he would find out their whereabouts .

On DATE the applicant and other members of her family went to PERSON , where they were told by a serviceman named PERSON that the CARDINAL men had been released .

Since CARDINAL DATE the applicant and other members of her family have been searching for PERSON and PERSON . On numerous occasions , both in person and in writing , they have applied to prosecutors at various levels , to ORG , to the administrative authorities in GPE . In letters addressed to the authorities the applicant stated the facts of her relatives’ detention and asked for assistance and details of the investigation . The applicant received hardly any substantive information from official bodies about the investigation into the disappearance of her son and son - in - law . On several occasions she received copies of letters by which her requests had been forwarded to various prosecutors .

NORP The applicant also visited the federal military base at GPE and saw a register of persons detained there . She claimed that the names of her son and son - in - law were not on that list .

On DATE the GPE administration in ORG issued a certificate to confirm that PERSON had stayed there DATE .

According to the Government , on DATE ORG ( прокуратура г. Грозного ) instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the disappearance of PERSON and PERSON under LAW of LAW ( kidnapping of CARDINAL or more persons by a group using firearms ) . The applicant insisted that the criminal proceedings had been instituted on DATE , as indicated in the decision of an investigator of the prosecutor ’s office of LOC of PERSON dated DATE . The case file was given the number DATE .

During the investigation the authorities identified CARDINAL military servicemen who had taken part in the apprehension of the applicant ’s relatives . They were GPE , both from PERSON and on mission in GPE . Those CARDINAL servicemen were called for questioning to ORG on DATE . The applicant submitted copies of summonses . She alleged that in the case file she had seen a transcript of interviews with GPE in which they had admitted that they had illegally arrested PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , but the investigator in charge had not allowed her to study that document or to make a copy of it . The Government submitted that the information on the existence of an interview transcript where T. and PERSON admitted the unlawful arrest of PERSON was not true . The Government emphasised that PERSON had not denied that they had brought the applicant ’s son to LOC ; however , they had had no information about their whereabouts after that . The investigator had had valid grounds to deny the applicant permission to make copies of the transcript .

At some point in DATE the case file was transferred to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE ( военная прокуратура DATE ) located in GPE .

On DATE the latter replied to the applicant ’s husband and to ORG that they had no criminal case file concerning the abduction of his son and son - in - law .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of the ORG informed ORG that on DATE their CARDINAL officers , PERSON had detained PERSON , PERSON and ORG for a breach of public order in the vicinity of the “ Neftyanik ” market in ORG and had taken those CARDINAL individuals to LOC , having reported the detention in writing to the head of the said PERSON . The letter also stated that the aforementioned officers had no information as to the subsequent fate of the detainees .

On DATE the applicant ’s husband wrote to ORG of GPE and enquired about his relatives’ whereabouts and details of the investigation . He also asked whether they had ever been charged with any crime .

On DATE the applicant ’s daughter wrote to the Prosecutor General seeking assistance in ensuring that an effective investigation be carried out by local prosecutors .

On DATE the applicant ’s husband applied to the military prosecutor of GPE with a request to inform him about progress in the investigation . He re - stated the circumstances of the detention of PERSON and PERSON and referred to the information about the CARDINAL servicemen , PERSON insisting that they should be questioned in connection with the disappearance of his relatives .

On DATE ORG , on behalf of the applicant , requested ORG to provide information on the investigation in the criminal case opened in connection with the abduction of PERSON and PERSON .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL replied that they did not have a file for criminal case no . DATE or any information about the detained men or servicemen PERSON

On DATE the applicant ’s husband submitted an application to a department of ORG of the ORG responsible for searching for missing persons . He gave details of the detention of PERSON and PERSON , as well as their personal details , a description of the clothes they had been wearing on DATE of detention and the known steps of the investigation .

On DATE the applicant ’s daughter applied to the head of ORG asking for help to find her relatives .

On DATE ORG of GPE informed the applicant that it had studied the criminal case file opened in connection with her CARDINAL relatives’ abduction and then forwarded it to ORG for further investigation , instructing the latter to take “ more active steps ” to locate the missing men . The letter contained no further information .

On DATE ORG replied to the applicant that following her complaint ORG of the ORG had been instructed to take all possible measures to establish the whereabouts of PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s husband submitted complaints to ORG of GPE . On DATE he also submitted a similar complaint to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG of GPE informed the applicant ’s husband that they had studied the file of the investigation into the abduction of his relatives , and ordered the investigators in charge to take steps to establish the whereabouts of the victims and of the culprits . The letter assured that the investigation of the crime was supervised by ORG of GPE .

By letter of DATE ORG of GPE informed the applicant that they had studied the file of the criminal case opened in connection with the abduction of her relatives and then forwarded it to ORG for an additional investigation . The letter assured the applicant that ORG had been instructed to carry out a number of investigative measures and that she would be notified of the results of the investigation .

NORP On DATE ORG of GPE forwarded the applicant ’s query regarding the investigation to ORG and invited it to determine the question of the responsibility of servicemen PERSON , who had participated in the detention of the applicant ’s CARDINAL relatives .

On DATE ORG of GPE again transferred the file of case no . DATE , which they had studied following the applicant ’s request , to ORG . ORG of GPE stated that its earlier instruction had not been complied with and invited ORG to extend the time - limit for a preliminary investigation and to carry out a thorough investigation , as well as to conduct an internal inquiry in connection with the ORG failure to comply with the instructions of the superior prosecutor ’s office .

According to the applicant , at some point she had found out that in DATE the investigator in charge had gone to PERSON and interrogated PERSON , who had allegedly confirmed that they had arrested PERSON and PERSON .

At some point in DATE criminal case no . DATE had been transferred to LOC ( прокуратура Заводского района г. Грозного ) .

By decision of DATE an investigator of ORG ordered that the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE instituted on DATE in connection with the abduction of PERSON and PERSON be discontinued . The decision stated in particular :

“ The preliminary investigation has established that on DATE at TIME officers of the ORG in camouflage uniforms armed with firearms entered unlawfully and without authorisation a household at CARDINAL FAC ... in PERSON belonging to the ORG , and after a search had delivered PERSON , PERSON and PERSON to PERSON of PERSON . Thereafter [ the officers ] left without drawing up reports on the detention of the aforementioned persons . DATE PERSON was released whilst PERSON and PERSON , whose whereabouts have not been established to date , were taken away from the territory of LOC of PERSON by ORG officers [ T. ] and [ M. ] to an unknown destination . ”

The decision further referred to statements from a number of witnesses , including the applicant ’s daughter and daughter - in - law , the applicant ’s CARDINAL neighbours and ORG , all of whom had given a similar description of the events of CARDINAL DATE . The decision also stated that ORG officer ORG had been questioned on DATE and DATE and ORG officer PERSON had been questioned on DATE and DATE . They both testified that on CARDINAL DATE in the vicinity of the “ NORP ” market in PERSON they had apprehended CARDINAL men , including PERSON and PERSON , for insulting local residents with swearwords , had taken them to LOC and had left the detainees there . The next day they had found out that the detainees had been released . Officer PERSON stated that he had drawn up a report on the detention of the CARDINAL men , whilst officer PERSON submitted that he did not remember whether he had drawn up any reports . The decision further stated that the fact of the apprehension on DATE of the applicant ’s relatives and ORG had been confirmed by the head of LOC in a letter of DATE and by the acting head of ORG of the ORG in a letter of CARDINAL DATE . The decision continued that on DATE an investigator of ORG had examined the register of persons held in LOC and had found out that the names of the applicant ’s son , son - in - law and ORG had not been listed among those detained there . The decision also referred to the statement of PERSON , who between CARDINAL April and DATE had been seconded to GPE as the head of the police of LOC . PERSON had stated that on a date which he could not remember ORG officers had delivered CARDINAL persons , who , as claimed by those officers , had been detained during a “ sweeping - up ” operation in LOC on suspicion of their involvement in illegal military activity . Officers PERSON had asked PERSON to keep the detainees until TIME and then release them except for PERSON and PERSON , as those CARDINAL were to be taken away by ORG personnel . According to B. , on DATE he had released the detainees , whilst GPE and PERSON had been taken away by ORG and M. The decision further relied on a letter of CARDINAL DATE from the head of ORG of the ORG , the permanent place of service of officers PERSON , who had confirmed that on CARDINAL DATE the said CARDINAL officers had , indeed , delivered the applicant ’s relatives to PERSON , but had no information as to the subsequent fate of PERSON and PERSON , as on TIME CARDINAL DATE those CARDINAL individuals had been taken away by personnel of another division of ORG of the ORG . The decision continued as follows :

“ During the preliminary investigation only a fact of the breach by the head of LOC of the procedural requirements relating to placement in detention and transfer of detainees was reliably established ; however , the said actions did not constitute a criminal offence under LAW and were punishable in disciplinary proceedings . The fact of the abduction of PERSON and PERSON by officials of the PERSON was not confirmed during the preliminary investigation . ”

The decision thus concluded that there was no evidence of a criminal offence under LAW in the actions of officials of LOC of PERSON .

On DATE the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE were resumed and , according to the Government ’s submissions , on DATE the case file was forwarded to the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG ( военная прокуратура NORP группировки войск ) for a further investigation , so as to check the possible involvement of the military personnel in the alleged offence .

On DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify those responsible , and then resumed on DATE .

The Government submitted that the applicant had been questioned by the investigators on DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively and had been granted the status of victim on DATE . The applicant ’s husband had been questioned and declared a victim on DATE . The applicant ’s daughter and daughter - in - law had been questioned on DATE and DATE respectively and granted the status of victim on DATE . The investigating authorities had also questioned PERSON , CARDINAL neighbours of the applicant and CARDINAL officials of the ORG and ORG who at the material time had been working in PERSON . The Government did not specify on what date witness statements had been obtained and submitted that the witnesses concerned had testified that they had no information regarding the perpetrators of the offence in question . According to the Government , it was impossible to establish other witnesses in the case but the search for them was currently underway . Lastly , the ORG stated that the investigating authorities had sent a number of queries to various ORG bodies on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and had undertaken other investigative measures , but did not specify what those measures had been .

The Government further submitted that during the questioning on DATE the applicant had stated that on DATE following the apprehension of her son and son - in - law she had learnt from an acquaintance , PERSON , that her son had been abducted because of a debt owed to PERSON . by his brother . They had then gone to see PERSON and discussed the payment of the debt . During questioning on an unspecified date , PERSON . had confirmed that the applicant ’s son owed him money in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) but denied any involvement in his abduction . The statement was confirmed by a witness , PERSON The investigating authorities could not question PERSON because he had died in DATE .

On DATE the investigator sent requests for information on the possible detention of PERSON and PERSON to penitentiary facilities of the PERSON and surrounding regions . Furthermore , he sent requests to departments of the interior and the ORG located in CARDINAL administrative units of GPE concerning their possible detention and institution of criminal proceedings against them . No relevant information was received .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify the culprits . The applicant was informed accordingly .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the applicant informed the investigating authorities that Mr Musitov had left GPE . Therefore he could not be questioned .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator sent instructions to district prosecutors of GPE to take certain investigative measures in respect of former officials of PERSON , which were later complied with .

On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON , who stated that the register of the temporary detention centre contained no relevant information . It is not clear who PERSON was , but he apparently referred to the temporary detention centre of LOC .

On DATE the investigator instructed the prosecutor of LOC of GPE to question Mr Ts . During the questioning PERSON . stated that Mr PERSON , PERSON brother , had not repaid the debt but he had nothing to do with his brother ’s abduction .

On DATE the investigation was again suspended on account of the failure to identify the culprits .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE respectively the applicant ’s relatives Mr Kh . and PERSON were questioned . They made no relevant statements .

On DATE the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify the culprits . The applicant was informed accordingly .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE a request was sent to the Commander of the NORP military District . He replied that he had no information on the detention of any persons in the relevant period .

On an unspecified date the applicant was questioned again . She stated that she believed Mr Ts . had been involved in the abduction .

On an unspecified date former officials of ORG were questioned . They stated that they had no information on law - enforcement officials’ involvement in an abduction of PERSON allegedly instigated by PERSON .

On DATE the investigator sent requests concerning the whereabouts of PERSON and PERSON to military commander ’s offices , the ORG units , departments of the interior , town and district prosecutor ’s offices of GPE and other competent authorities . No relevant information was received .

DATE . On DATE the investigation was resumed . The investigator reiterated the requests sent on DATE .

On DATE the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify the culprits .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE Mr PERSON , PERSON brother , was questioned . He stated that he had not been at home when his brother had been apprehended and had heard from others about what had happened .

On DATE Mr PERSON was granted victim status in the proceedings and reiterated his previous statement . The Government submitted that from his statement and the applicant ’s statement made on DATE it appeared that PERSON could be detained in penitentiary facilities of FAC . The investigator sent relevant requests to the penitentiary facilities . However , according to the information received , he had not been held there .

It appears that the investigation was suspended once again and then resumed on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against the investigators with ORG of Grozny ( “ the FAC ” ) . She claimed that the investigating authorities had not taken all possible and necessary measures and had thus failed to carry out an effective investigation into the disappearance of her son and son - in - law . She also complained that the question of the responsibility of servicemen PERSON had not been investigated and that all her requests regarding the results of the investigation had remained unanswered or had only produced standard replies . In her court complaint the applicant referred to LAW and LAW . She requested that the court find unlawful the inactivity of the investigating authorities and order ORG to carry out an effective investigation .

By decision of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint , having stated that “ the investigating authorities had undertaken all necessary measures ” and that the applicant “ had not pointed out what particular measures could otherwise be taken ” .

DATE . On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision on appeal . It noted in particular that the involvement of federal servicemen in the detention and subsequent disappearance of PERSON and PERSON had been established and therefore the investigation of the case fell within the competence of military prosecutors . In this connection , on DATE the Zavodskoy ORG had transmitted the case file to ORG of GPE for its further transfer to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE .

Despite specific requests made by ORG on QUANTITY occasions , the Government did not submit a copy of any of the documents to which they referred . Relying on the information obtained from ORG , the ORG stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings . At the same time , the Government suggested that a ORG delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted , with the exception of “ the documents [ disclosing military information and personal data of the witnesses ] , and without the right to make copies of the case file or to transmit it to others ” .

On DATE the ORG declared the application admissible and reiterated its request for a copy of investigation file no . DATE . ORG also requested information on the progress of the investigation after DATE .

In response , the ORG submitted an update on the investigation but no documents from the investigation file except for decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and the decision to grant victim status to PERSON . They reiterated that disclosure of the documents would violate LAW since the file contained information concerning military operations as well as personal data of participants in the criminal proceedings .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW RSFSR . On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW ( the new ORG ) .

Article CARDINAL of the new 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 .

Article CARDINAL of the new ORG stipulates that evidence from the preliminary investigation may not be disclosed . Part CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator , but only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of participants in criminal proceedings without their permission .


No longer a victim of a violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 6

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

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

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

J. was the youngest son of a renowned banking family in GPE am Main . He got to know the applicant , a law student , as an acquaintance of his sister .

On DATE the applicant lured PERSON , aged eleven , into his flat in GPE am GPE by pretending that the child ’s sister had left a jacket there . He then suffocated J.

Subsequently , the applicant deposited a letter at ORG GPE place of residence , stating that J. had been kidnapped by several persons . Only if the kidnappers received MONEY and managed to leave the country would the child ’s parents see their son again . The applicant then drove to a pond at a private property near GPE , TIME drive from GPE , and hid J. ’s corpse under a jetty at the pond .

On DATE TIME the applicant picked up the ransom at a tram station . From then on he was secretly observed by the police . He paid part of the ransom into his accounts and hid the remainder of the money in his flat . TIME , the police arrested him at GPE am GPE airport .

After having seen a doctor at the airport ’s hospital on account of circulation trouble and skin lesions , the applicant was taken to the GPE am ORG . He was informed by detective officer PERSON that he was suspected of having kidnapped PERSON and was instructed about his rights as a defendant , notably the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer . He was then questioned by PERSON with a view to finding J. In reply , he suggested that the child was being held by another kidnapper . He was allowed to consult a lawyer , PERSON , for TIME at his request . He subsequently stated that GPE and GPE had kidnapped the boy and had hidden him in a hut by a lake . PERSON and the applicant thereupon agreed to resume the questioning the following morning .

Early in the morning of DATE , before PERSON came to work , detective officer PERSON , acting on the orders of the deputy chief of the GPE police , NORP , told the applicant that he would suffer considerable pain at the hands of a person specially trained for such purposes if he did not disclose the child ’s whereabouts . According to the applicant , the officer further threatened to lock him into a cell with CARDINAL huge black people who would sexually abuse him . The officer also hit him once on the chest with his hand and shook him so that his head hit the wall on CARDINAL occasion . The Government disputed that the applicant had been threatened with sexual abuse .

For fear of being exposed to the measures he was threatened with , the applicant disclosed the precise whereabouts of the child after TIME of questioning .

As the applicant had declared that he would only agree to go to the place where he had hidden J. in the presence of detective officer PERSON , he was then driven with PERSON and numerous other police officers to PERSON , without detective officer PERSON being present any longer . The police found PERSON ’s corpse under the jetty at the pond near PERSON as indicated by the applicant . They recorded the discovery of the corpse on videotape .

The police detected tyre tracks left by the applicant ’s car at the pond near PERSON . When questioned by detective officer PERSON on the way back from PERSON to the police station the applicant confessed to having kidnapped and killed PERSON The police further secured ORG school exercise books , a backpack , clothes worn by PERSON when he was kidnapped and the typewriter used for the blackmail letter in containers indicated by the applicant on the way back to GPE am GPE . They further found almost all the ransom money and a note concerning the planning of the crime in the applicant ’s flat . According to the autopsy carried out on PERSON ’s corpse on DATE , the boy had died of suffocation .

The applicant consulted his lawyer En . , who had been instructed by his mother and had tried in vain to contact and advise the applicant in TIME at the police station , on DATE on his return from PERSON .

In a note for the police file dated DATE , the deputy chief of the GPE police , NORP , stated that that morning J. ’s life had been in great danger , if he was still alive at all , given his lack of food and the temperature outside . In order to save the child ’s life , he had therefore ordered the applicant to be questioned by police officer PERSON under the threat of pain which would not cause any injuries . The treatment itself was to be carried out under medical supervision . NORP further stated that he had ordered another police officer to obtain a “ truth serum ” to be administered to the applicant . According to the note , the applicant ’s questioning was exclusively aimed at saving the child ’s life rather than furthering the criminal proceedings concerning the kidnapping . As the applicant had already made a confession after having been threatened with pain by detective officer PERSON , no measures had been carried out .

The applicant maintained his confession when questioned by the police on DATE , by a public prosecutor on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , and by a district court judge on DATE .

On DATE , DATE of the hearing , the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged an application for the proceedings to be discontinued . He claimed that he had been threatened by detective officer PERSON on instructions from the deputy chief of the GPE am GPE police , NORP , with being subjected to severe pain and sexual abuse . He argued that his treatment had been in breach of Article CARDINALa of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article CARDINAL of the Convention and warranted the discontinuation of the proceedings against him .

NORP The applicant further lodged an application for a declaration that owing to the continuous effect ( GPE ) of the threat of violence against him on DATE , all further statements which he had made to the investigation authorities until the beginning of the hearing could not be relied upon in the criminal proceedings . Moreover , the applicant sought a declaration that on account of the violation of LAW , the use in the criminal proceedings of all items of evidence , such as the child ’s corpse , which had become known to the investigation authorities because of the statements extracted from the applicant – the so - called “ fruit of the poisonous tree ” – was prohibited ( “ LOC ) .

On DATE the GPE am ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application for the criminal proceedings against him to be discontinued . It found that the applicant had been threatened with considerable pain if he refused to disclose the victim ’s whereabouts . However , the court did not find it established that the applicant had also been threatened with sexual abuse or had been otherwise influenced . The mere threat to cause the applicant pain had been illegal pursuant to LAW , and also pursuant to LAW , second sentence , of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) and LAW , which underlay that provision .

NORP However , this breach of constitutional rights did not bar criminal proceedings as such . In accordance with LAW § CARDINAL of the LAW , statements obtained through the use of prohibited methods of interrogation could not be relied upon in the criminal proceedings against the defendant . Likewise , the use of the investigation methods in question had not restricted the rights of the defence to such an extent that the criminal proceedings could no longer be conducted . Having regard to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant on the one hand , and to the severity of the unlawful conduct in the investigation proceedings on the other hand , there had not been such an exceptional and intolerable violation of the rule of law in the investigation proceedings as to bar the continuation of criminal proceedings .

In a separate decision also delivered on DATE the GPE am ORG , granting the applicant ’s application to that effect , decided that in accordance with LAW § CARDINAL , second sentence , of LAW , all confessions and statements hitherto made by the applicant before the police , a public prosecutor and a district court judge could not be used as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him .

The court found that on DATE detective officer PERSON had used prohibited methods of interrogation within the meaning of LAW § CARDINAL of the LAW by threatening that the applicant would suffer pain if he did not disclose the child ’s whereabouts . Therefore , it was prohibited to use as evidence statements which the applicant had made as a consequence of the use of this forbidden investigative measure . This exclusion of evidence ( Beweisverwertungsverbot ) did not only comprise the statements made immediately after the threat on DATE . Owing to the continuous effect ( GPE ) of the violation of LAW , all further statements which the applicant had made to the investigation authorities since that date could not be relied upon in the criminal proceedings .

The procedural irregularity caused by the use of a prohibited method of investigation could only have been remedied if the applicant had been informed before his subsequent questioning that the earlier statements he had made as a consequence of the use of forbidden investigation methods could not be used as evidence against him . However , the applicant had merely been instructed about his right as an accused not to testify , without having additionally been informed about the exclusion of the evidence that had been improperly obtained . He had therefore not been given the necessary “ qualified instruction ” ( qualifizierte GPE ) in the course of any of his hearings until then .

On the contrary , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application for a declaration that on account of the violation of LAW , the use in the criminal proceedings of all items of evidence , such as the child ’s corpse , which had become known to the investigation authorities as a result of the statements extracted from the applicant – the so - called “ fruit of the poisonous tree ” – was prohibited ( “ LOC ) . That court found :

“ On the contrary , there is no long - range effect of the breach of LAW meaning that the items of evidence which have become known as a result of the statement may likewise not be used [ as evidence ] . The ORG agrees in this respect with the conciliatory view ( GPE ) taken by scholars and in court rulings ... ’s fundamental rights – in the present case the threat of physical violence – and the seriousness of the offence he was charged with and which had to be investigated – the completed murder of a child – makes the exclusion of evidence which has become known as a result of the defendant ’s statement – in particular the discovery of the dead child and the results of the autopsy – appear disproportionate . ”

In his statement on the charges , made on DATE of the trial , the applicant admitted having killed J. , but stated that he had not initially planned to do so . On the contrary , in his final statement at the close of the trial , after evidence had been taken DATE and DATE , he admitted that he had also planned from the outset to kill the child and had acted with that intent . He then described his confession as “ the only way to accept his deep guilt ” and as the “ greatest possible apology for the murder of the child ” .

On DATE the GPE am ORG convicted the applicant , inter alia , of murder and kidnapping with extortion causing the death of the victim . It sentenced him to life imprisonment and declared that his guilt was of particular gravity ( besondere PERSON der PERSON ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The court found that at the hearing the applicant had been instructed anew about his right as a defendant to remain silent and about the fact that all his earlier statements could not be used as evidence against him , and had thereby been given the necessary qualified instruction . The applicant had nevertheless again confessed that he had kidnapped and killed PERSON His statements at the trial concerning the planning of his offence formed the essential , if not the only , basis for the court ’s findings of fact . They were supported by the testimony of ORG sister , the blackmail letter and the note concerning the planning of the crime found in the applicant ’s flat . The findings of fact concerning the execution of the crime were exclusively based on the applicant ’s confession at the trial . Further items of evidence showed that he had also told the truth in this respect . These included the findings of the autopsy as to the cause of the child ’s death , the tyre tracks left by the applicant ’s car near the pond where the child ’s corpse had been found , and the discovery of money from the ransom which had been found in his flat or paid into his accounts .

In assessing the gravity of the applicant ’s guilt , the court observed that he had killed his DATE victim in order to be able to live in luxury with his wealthy friends and his girlfriend and to preserve his self - created image of a rich and successful young lawyer . It found that , contrary to the views expressed by ORG and the private accessory prosecutors , the fact that the applicant had volunteered a full confession at the trial , even though all his earlier confessions could not be used as evidence pursuant to LAW § CARDINAL of LAW , was a mitigating factor . However , even without his confession , the applicant would have been found guilty of kidnapping with extortion causing the death of the victim . The applicant had been kept under police surveillance after he had collected the ransom , which had later been found in his flat or paid into his accounts . Furthermore , it was proved by the autopsy on ORG ’s corpse that the boy had been suffocated , and tyre tracks left by the applicant ’s car had been detected at the place where ORG body had been found .

The court further observed that in questioning the applicant , methods of interrogation prohibited under LAW had been employed inasmuch as the applicant had been threatened with pain in order to make him disclose the child ’s whereabouts . Whether and to what extent detective officer PERSON and the deputy chief of the GPE police , NORP , were guilty of an offence because of these threats had to be determined in the pending criminal investigations against them . However , their possibly illegal acts did not mitigate the applicant ’s own guilt . The misconduct of police officers , belonging to the executive power , could not prevent the judiciary from assessing findings of fact in accordance with the law .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG , submitting his grounds of appeal on DATE in particular . He complained that ORG , in its decision of DATE , had refused to discontinue the criminal proceedings against him . He argued that on DATE , he had lodged an application for the proceedings to be discontinued . At the same time , he had applied for a declaration that owing to the continuous effect ( GPE ) of the threat of violence on DATE , all further statements which he had made to the investigation authorities could not be relied upon in the criminal proceedings . He had also requested the court to declare that since the confession had been obtained from him by threats , the use in the criminal proceedings of all items of evidence , such as the child ’s corpse , which had become known to the investigation authorities because of the statements extracted from him was prohibited ( “ LOC ” ) . The applicant included a full copy of these applications of DATE , including the grounds given for them , in his submissions giving reasons for his appeal on points of law . He further included a copy of ORG decision of DATE dismissing his application for the proceedings to be discontinued and argued in respect of the police ’s threats against him that , developing the case - law of ORG , such conduct “ leapt beyond ” the exclusion of evidence and led to an impediment to the proceedings ( “ dass ein derartiges PERSON ‘ GPE PERSON begründet ” ) .

In his observations dated DATE ORG argued that the applicant ’s appeal on points of law should be dismissed as manifestly ill - founded . He argued that the use of prohibited methods of interrogation , such as a threat of torture , did not lead to an impediment to the criminal proceedings . LAW expressly provided that the use of any of the prohibited methods enumerated entailed only the exclusion of evidence . The applicant had not complained of a breach of LAW of LAW . In any event , there would be no grounds for such a complaint as ORG had only used the applicant ’s full confession at the trial , which he had made after having been informed that his previous statements had not been admitted as evidence .

On DATE ORG , without giving further reasons , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . PERSON the facts underlying the case and the content of the impugned decisions , he complained under LAW and LAW , second sentence , of LAW about the way in which he had been questioned by the police on TIME . He argued that he had been threatened with being subjected to severe pain and sexual abuse if he did not disclose the child’e within the meaning of LAW and infringed LAW § CARDINAL of LAW . It also violated his absolute right to human dignity under LAW , which lay at the heart of the provisions in question . Because of these unjustifiable human - rights violations , there was both a bar to the criminal proceedings against him and a prohibition on using the items of evidence obtained as a consequence of the confession extracted from him in the course of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , refused to accept the applicant ’s constitutional complaint for examination as it was inadmissible .

Firstly , in so far as the applicant complained of the failure of the criminal courts to discontinue the proceedings against him , the court found that he had not sufficiently substantiated his complaint . It observed that ORG had already stated that the police ’s threat to inflict pain on the applicant had violated LAW . Because of this threat , the applicant ’s rights under LAW and LAW , second sentence , of LAW had been disregarded in the investigation proceedings .

However , the violation of fundamental rights outside the trial did not necessarily warrant the conclusion that the judgment delivered by a criminal court , which was based on the findings made during the trial , breached constitutional law . In the present case , the criminal courts had found that the methods of investigation used by the police had been prohibited , but had differed from the applicant as to the legal conclusions to be drawn from that finding . They had taken the view that the use as evidence of the statements obtained as a result of the measures in question had been prohibited but that there had been no bar to the criminal proceedings altogether .

According to ORG , there would not have been a violation of fundamental rights if the procedural flaw of having applied prohibited methods of investigation could be regarded as having been remedied by the criminal courts , because they had prohibited the use as evidence of the statements obtained thereby . Such a prohibition was prescribed by LAW § CARDINAL of LAW in order to compensate for a prior infringement of the rights of the person concerned . On the contrary , the circumstances in which substantial procedural irregularities might entail a bar to criminal proceedings were not laid down in law . In these circumstances , the applicant had failed to explain why the contested methods of investigation had not only entailed a prohibition on using the statements obtained thereby as evidence , but had led to a bar to criminal proceedings against him .

Secondly , ORG found that , in so far as the applicant complained that ORG had refused to exclude the use in the proceedings of all items of evidence obtained as a result of the confession extorted from him by threats ( “ LOC ” ) , his constitutional complaint was likewise inadmissible . The applicant had failed to raise this issue in the proceedings before ORG .

The decision was served on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE .

On DATE the GPE am ORG convicted detective officer PERSON of coercion committed by an official in the course of his duties . It cautioned the defendant and imposed a suspended fine amounting to CARDINAL DATE payments of MONEY ( ORG ) , which the defendant would be required to pay if he committed another offence during the probation period . Furthermore , the court convicted the deputy chief of the GPE police , NORP , of having incited PERSON , a subordinate , to commit coercion in the course of his duties . It also cautioned NORP and imposed on him a suspended fine amounting to CARDINAL DATE payments of ORG CARDINAL . The applicant had given evidence as a witness in these proceedings .

ORG found that on TIME DATE NORP had ordered that the applicant was to be questioned while being subjected to pain in the manner set out in his subsequent note for the police file . By doing so , he had acted against the advice of all his subordinate heads of department entrusted with the investigation into ORG kidnapping . The heads of department had disapproved of the measure he had ordered and had proposed an approach entailing further questioning and confrontation of the applicant with third persons instead . NORP had personally ordered detective officer PERSON to threaten the applicant with physical violence , which was to be carried out by another specially trained police officer . The measure had been aimed at finding out immediately where the applicant had hidden PERSON , whose life he had considered to be at great risk . In order to save PERSON ’s life , PERSON had threatened the applicant in the manner ordered by NORP

ORG observed that the method of investigation had not been justified as an act of necessity , because it violated human dignity as codified in LAW . Respect for human dignity also lay at the heart of LAW , second sentence , of LAW . The protection of human dignity was absolute . Allowing exceptions or a balancing of interests would breach a taboo .

In determining the sentences , ORG notably took into consideration that the GPE sole concern had been to save PERSON ’s life and that they had been under extreme pressure because of their respective responsibilities vis - à - vis the superior authority and the public . They had been completely exhausted at the relevant time and had acted in a very tense and hectic situation . Moreover , NORP had openly taken responsibility for his acts by admitting and explaining them in a note for the police file on DATE . The proceedings had lasted a long time and had attracted immense media attention . Both defendants had suffered prejudice in their professional career : NORP had been transferred to ORG of the Interior , and PERSON had been prohibited from carrying out measures relevant to the prosecution of criminal offences . Furthermore , it was the first time that a conflict situation such as the one in the GPE case had been assessed by a NORP criminal court .

The judgment became final on DATE .

D. was subsequently transferred to ORG and was appointed its chief .

DATE . On DATE the applicant applied to the GPE am ORG for legal aid with a view to bringing official liability proceedings against ORG for the payment of compensation . He claimed that he had been traumatised by the methods of police investigation applied against him , inter alia the threat of being subjected to pain if he did not disclose ORG whereabouts , further threats of sexual abuse and slaps , and was in need of psychological treatment .

In its submissions dated DATE the GPE am ORG contested that PERSON ’s conduct when questioning the applicant in TIME of DATE was to be legally qualified as coercion and amounted to a breach of official duties .

On DATE the GPE am ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application for legal aid .

On DATE the GPE am ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the refusal to grant him legal aid . Endorsing the reasons given by ORG , it confirmed in particular that the police officers NORP and PERSON , when threatening the applicant , had infringed human dignity , which was inviolable , and had thus breached their official duties . However , the applicant would not be able to prove that the threats of torture uttered against him had caused mental damage necessitating psychological treatment . It was obvious that the ORG threat for a short period of time was negligible compared to the traumatisation caused by the fact that he had killed a child . Moreover , even assuming that the applicant would be able to prove that police officer PERSON had shaken him , as a result of which his head had hit a wall on CARDINAL occasion , and had once hit him on the chest , allegedly causing a haematoma near his collarbone , the physical damage caused thereby would be too minor to necessitate the payment of compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The violation of the applicant ’s human dignity by the threat of torture did not warrant the payment of compensation either as the applicant had obtained sufficient satisfaction by the exclusion of his statements as evidence and the criminal conviction of the police officers responsible for the threats .

On DATE ORG , allowing a constitutional complaint by the applicant , quashed ORG decision and remitted the case to that court . It found that in refusing to grant the applicant legal aid , ORG had violated the principle of equal access to court . In particular , that court had speculated that the applicant would not be able to prove that the threat to torture him had led to mental damage and had thus refused to take the necessary evidence ( in the main proceedings ) . In addition to that , it was not obvious that the physical injuries the applicant claimed to have suffered in the course of the interrogation could be considered to be of secondary importance in view of the threats uttered against him . Moreover , the question whether the violation of the applicant ’s human dignity necessitated the payment of damages despite the satisfaction he had obtained as a result of the criminal conviction of the police officers involved was a difficult legal question on which no precedent existed in a judgment of a court of final instance , and which should therefore not be determined in legal - aid proceedings .

The proceedings are currently pending before the GPE am ORG .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , on the protection of human dignity , reads as follows :

“ Human dignity shall be inviolable . To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all ORG authority . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , second sentence , of LAW , on the rights of persons in detention , provides :

“ Persons taken into custody may neither be subjected to mental nor to physical ill - treatment . ”

Article CARDINALa of the Code of Criminal Procedure , on prohibited methods of interrogation ( verbotene GPE ) , provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) NORP The freedom of the accused to make decisions and to manifest his will shall not be impaired by ill - treatment , induced fatigue , physical interference , the administration of drugs , torment , deception or hypnosis . Coercion may be used only in so far as it is permitted by the law on criminal procedure . Threatening the accused with measures that are not permitted under the law on criminal procedure or holding out the prospect of an advantage that is not contemplated by statute shall be prohibited .

( CARDINAL ) Measures which impair the accused ’s memory or ability to understand and accept a given situation ( Einsichtsfähigkeit ) shall not be permitted .

( CARDINAL ) The prohibition under subsections ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) shall apply even if the accused has consented [ to the proposed measure ] . Statements obtained in breach of this prohibition shall not be used [ in evidence ] , even if the accused has agreed to their use . ”

By LAW , the intentional killing of a person is to be qualified as murder if certain aggravating elements are present . A murderer is notably a person who kills another out of cupidity , treacherously or in order to cover up another offence . Murder is punishable by life imprisonment .

A declaration by the sentencing court that the defendant ’s guilt is of a particular gravity may , among other things , have a bearing on a subsequent decision as to whether or not to suspend the remainder of the defendant ’s prison sentence on probation . Article CARDINALa of the Criminal Code states that the court is to suspend the remainder of a life sentence on probation if the convicted person has served DATE of his sentence , provided that this can be justified in the interests of public security and the particular gravity of the defendant ’s guilt does not warrant the continued execution of the sentence .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently in GPE . He is represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The respondent Government are represented by their Agent Mr PERSON of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE and , on DATE , he applied to ORG ( Migrationsverket ) for asylum and a residence permit . On DATE an initial interview was held with the applicant and , on DATE , ORG conducted a second interview . During these interviews , the applicant stated that he had been active within ORG [ NORP ] in the district of ORG where he lived . He had commenced his political activities in DATE and , in DATE , he became the organisation ’s secretary within the district . He had been responsible for organising meetings and demonstrations and for recruiting new members to the party .

On DATE he had been arrested during a demonstration and had been beaten by the police while being taken to the police station . During his detention , he had been tortured CARDINAL times per day . He had , inter alia , been beaten all over his body with sticks , suspended with his hands and feet tied from a pipe , burnt with cigarettes and had had water mixed with chilli thrown in his face . He had been told that the ill - treatment would continue until he stopped his political activities . After he had been detained for DATE , CARDINAL of the leaders of ORG [ NORP ] had managed to get him out .

He had been arrested TIME time , on DATE , in connection with a meeting in CARDINAL of the party ’s offices . He had been detained for DATE before his father had managed to bribe the police , paying CARDINAL ORG ( around ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , to get him released . Also this time he had been badly tortured and had had to stay at a private hospital for DATE following his release to get treatment for his injuries . He had not reported the torture to the authorities since it was the police and supporters of the governing party who had carried it out . The police had also ordered him to present himself at the police station twice a month but he had only done so on CARDINAL occasion . However , he had continued his political activities and , on DATE , the police and some supporters of the governing party had come to his home , looking for him . As he had not been at home , they had destroyed his belongings and had harassed his father , saying that they would kill the applicant should they find him . Following this , the applicant had gone into hiding .

On DATE a supporter of the governing party had been murdered in his neighbourhood and the applicant claimed that he had been accused of the murder as yet another means of persecuting him because of his political affiliation . Due to these incidents , he had travelled to some relatives in GPE who had arranged for him to leave the country with the help of smugglers , to whom the applicant ’s father had paid QUANTITY ( around ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

The applicant alleged before ORG that he would be arrested and tortured if he was returned to GPE and that the political persecution of him would continue . To support his claims , he submitted a medical certificate from GPE made by Dr. PERSON at ORG in DATE . It stated that the applicant had been cared for at the hospital CARDINAL DATE as he had scars and wounds after receiving blows to his body . He had been given antibiotics and painkillers , as well as medication to subdue his anxiety . The applicant also relied on a certificate from the GPE Secretary , PERSON , of ORG [ NORP ] in ORG which stated that he had been very active within the party and had been arrested and tortured on CARDINAL occasions .

The applicant further invoked medical certificates from GPE from which it appeared that he had been admitted to psychiatric care DATE and DATE , and thereafter had been in regular contact with the psychiatric service for asylum seekers in GPE . He had been diagnosed as suffering from post traumatic stress disorder ( PTSD ) and depression .

In a submission of DATE , the applicant claimed that he had been raped and subjected to serious sexual abuse while in detention in GPE and that he had repeated flashbacks and nightmares from the abuses . He stated that he had been too ashamed and afraid to recount these events during the interviews with ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected the application . It first noted that the general situation in GPE was not good but that it was not such that it could grant the applicant asylum solely on this basis . ORG did not question that the applicant had been involved in ORG [ NORP ] in LOC or that he had been the victim of abuse and torture , which it regarded as serious . However , ORG considered that the applicant ’s political involvement had been on a local level and that he had not held a prominent position within the party . Moreover , the harassment and abuse of which he had been the victim seemed to be personal aggressions from supporters of the governing party and police officers who had acted on their own initiative . Thus , it found that the abuses were not sanctioned by the NORP authorities and that the applicant would not be of interest to the authorities because of his political involvement . Consequently , he would not face a real risk of torture or ill - treatment if returned to his home country . Furthermore , with regard to the applicant ’s claim that he had been accused of murder , ORG considered that he would have the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law and that the legal system in GPE worked relatively well . Even if he were to be convicted in the first instance , he could appeal to the higher courts in GPE which were considered to be independent and fair . In these circumstances , the applicant could not be granted asylum in GPE .

As concerned the applicant ’s mental health , ORG noted that , in DATE , he had requested to be exempt from having a working permit in order to be able to work in GPE . ORG considered this as a sign of improvement of the applicant ’s health . Moreover , it observed that there was psychiatric care available in GPE where the applicant should be able to get adequate treatment . ORG further found that the applicant was not suffering from a serious mental disorder or any other disorder of such a serious nature that he could be granted leave to stay in GPE based on humanitarian grounds .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Utlänningsnämnden ) , maintaining his claims and adding that , although torture was prohibited by NORP law , it was widespread . Moreover , the NORP authorities sanctioned persecution of political opponents and , if he was prosecuted for murder , he would risk being kept in detention for a very long time before the case was heard by the courts . The applicant further stated that he had continuous nightmares about the torture and the sexual abuse of which he had been a victim , and had serious thoughts of suicide . According to him , his friends had to keep an eye on him all the time . He relied on medical certificates which supported his statements concerning his poor mental health .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It shared ORG reasoning and conclusion that the applicant could not be granted asylum . With regard to his poor mental health , ORG noted that he was not undergoing regular treatment except that he met with a nurse for counselling . Thus , it found that the applicant was not in such poor health that he could be granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds .

In DATE the applicant lodged a new application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds , invoking his continuously deteriorating mental health . He relied on medical certificates from the Crisis and ORG which confirmed that he had been subjected to grave and systematic torture , and that it had caused him to develop PTSD with a psychotic strain . He was considered to be in need of extensive treatment . Moreover , DATE , he had been admitted to psychiatric care on several occasions ( DATE , CARDINAL TIME DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) because he had been considered to be suicidal .

On DATE ORG decided to stay the enforcement of the deportation of the applicant until further notice . It further requested an independent physician ( förtroendeläkare ) to examine the applicant and to submit her observations and conclusions to ORG .

On DATE the physician , PERSON , a specialist in psychiatry , submitted her findings which were based on a personal examination of the applicant and access to all his medical journals and certificates . She observed that the applicant suffered from flashbacks from the torture and rape , and that he blamed himself for the abuses . Moreover , he was constantly anxious and depressed but the psychiatrist found no sign of psychotic symptoms or paranoia . However , his health had not improved and , although he had never injured himself , he had expressed suicidal thoughts and plans . Thus , she considered that a risk of suicide in the future could not be excluded and she concluded that there existed certain impediments against the enforcement of the deportation order .

In response to the independent physician ’s conclusion , CARDINAL of the applicant ’s regular physicians , PERSON and PERSON , replied that they considered that there were clear and absolute impediments against the enforcement of the deportation order since the applicant suffered from grave PTSD and depression , and because there was a real risk that he would try to commit suicide .

On DATE ORG rejected the new application . It first noted that the applicant had only invoked humanitarian grounds based on his poor mental health and that it was only in exceptional cases that leave to stay could be granted on that basis . ORG found that the medical certificates and the independent physician ’s report did not show that the applicant had a serious mental disorder for which a residence permit should be granted on medical grounds . It considered that the applicant could receive proper treatment in his home country and noted that his relatives remained there . Thus it concluded that it would not violate the standards of humanity to deport him to GPE .

The applicant then lodged another new application with ORG . He stated that , since the last rejection , he had been admitted to psychiatric care on CARDINAL occasions ( DATE , DATE and DATE ) due to a high risk of suicide . His treating physicians considered that he suffered from a serious and complicated psychiatric disorder due to his traumas in his home country and that there was an absolute impediment to the enforcement of his deportation order .

On DATE ORG rejected the new application on the grounds that the applicant had invoked no new circumstances of relevance .

As the applicant refused to leave GPE voluntarily and went into hiding to avoid deportation , ORG , on DATE , transferred the responsibility for implementing the deportation order to the police authority .

On DATE the applicant lodged yet another new application with ORG because he had , once again , been admitted to psychiatric care .

On DATE ORG decided not to stay the enforcement of the deportation order .

However , on DATE , following the ORG ’s indication under LAW , ORG decided to stay the deportation of the applicant until further notice . ORG decision is still in force .

On DATE the ORG adjourned the case at the request of ORG following the enactment of an interim amendment to LAW , on the basis of which the applicant ’s case would be reviewed .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that , on DATE , ORG had decided not to grant him a residence permit in GPE on the basis of the interim amendment to LAW . ORG had concluded that the applicant could not be granted leave to stay on medical grounds and that he could get adequate care in his home country .

According to a medico - legal protocol , dated DATE , and a medico - legal certificate , dated DATE , both by Dr PERSON , a specialist in forensic medicine at the Crisis and Trauma Centre , the applicant had a large number of scars on his body , some of which were typical after burning and severe violence ( skarpt våld ) . It was considered very unlikely that the applicant could have caused these injuries himself or that they were the result of accidents . Instead , the findings confirmed that he had been tortured as he had claimed .

With regard to the applicant ’s mental health , he has submitted several medical reports from the aforementioned psychiatrists ( ORG , PERSON and PERSON ) dating from DATE to DATE , as well a report dated DATE from PERSON , assistant physician , and PERSON , chief physician at ORG . According to these reports , the applicant was admitted for psychiatric care for the first time DATE and DATE , DATE after his arrival in GPE on DATE . Subsequently , he has been admitted to psychiatric care on repeated occasions but for shorter periods , the last time DATE and DATE , due to the risk of suicide . However , on no occasion has he been committed to compulsory psychiatric care ( tvångsvård ) , i.e. taken into care against his will . He has had continuous contact with psychiatric services and has had a positive attitude to treatment all along .

All the physicians agreed that the applicant suffered from serious PTSD and depression , and that his health had not improved despite the treatment . PERSON and PERSON also considered that he had a serious and complicated psychiatric disorder , with which diagnosis , however , PERSON disagreed as she had found no signs of psychotic symptoms when examining the applicant . Nevertheless , she considered that a risk of suicide could not be excluded , although the applicant had never injured himself . PERSON and PERSON maintained in their reports that there was a real risk of suicide as the applicant was constantly struggling with self - destructive thoughts , and had suicidal impulses and clear flashbacks from torture . Thus , in the view of PERSON , there were certain impediments against the enforcement of the deportation order because of the applicant ’s mental health condition , whereas PERSON and PERSON insisted that there was an absolute impediment against the deportation as the applicant was in such poor mental health that he could act in desperation if he were to be deported . These CARDINAL physicians also stated that the applicant ’s poor health had been caused by the traumas of which he had been the victim in GPE and by the prolonged insecurity in GPE . They estimated that he would need extensive treatment , both medical and psychiatric , for a long time and in a secure environment .

In the last certificate , dated DATE , PERSON wrote that the applicant ’s condition had not improved but rather worsened because he was very frustrated over his uncertain situation in GPE . He had continuous contact with a psychologist at the clinic and got his medication in doses for DATE at a time to prevent a suicide by overdose . He was medicated with the anti - psychotic drug , GPE , the anti - depressive drug , Clomipramine , as well as with anxiety reducing medication and sleeping pills .

The NORP government is the main provider of health services in the country , with the private sector playing an increasingly larger role . Moreover , non - governmental organisations ( NGOs ) are involved in the provision of primary health care and in rehabilitation . The country has a national mental health programme and there are budget allocations for mental health . However , both the budget and the number of mental health professionals are largely inadequate . Medicines , including antidepressants , are available and commonly used in GPE for the treatment of mental illness . Different types of psychotherapy are also used in treatment .

Formal care and treatment of mentally ill persons started in DATE when ORG was opened and , in DATE , the first outdoor clinic started functioning in ORG . Since DATE , more institutes were opened and , in DATE , ORG opened as a fully operational hospital and educational centre . Moreover , each military hospital has a mental health department and there are mental health sections in hospitals in several cities around the country . Several smaller , private clinics have also been established , in particularly in and around GPE , such as ORG .

Furthermore , ORG , ORG and ORG have their seats in GPE and are affiliated to ORG , ORG and ORG at ORG , respectively . Also , in DATE , an NGO , ORG , was created with the mission to provide community - based mental health service to the people in GPE . It has its base at ORG in GPE .

The basic provisions , applied in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE were laid down in the CARDINAL LAW ( utlänningslagen , DATE hereinafter referred to as “ the DATE LAW ) . However , LAW was replaced , on DATE , by a new LAW ( Utlänningslag , DATE hereinafter referred to as “ the DATE LAW ) . Both LAW and LAW define the conditions under which an alien can be expelled from the country , as well as the procedures relating to the enforcement of decisions under the Acts .

LAW , LAW provided that an alien staying in GPE for DATE should have a residence permit . Such a permit could be issued , inter alia , to an alien who , for humanitarian reasons , should be allowed to settle in GPE ( LAW , LAW ) . For example , serious physical or mental illness could , in exceptional cases , constitute humanitarian reasons for the granting of a residence permit if it was a life - threatening illness for which no treatment could be provided in the alien ’s home country .

Further , according to LAW , an alien who was considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection was , with certain exceptions , entitled to residence in GPE ( LAW , LAW ) . The term “ refugee ” referred to an alien who was outside the country of his nationality owing to well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , nationality , membership of a particular social group , or religious or political opinion , and who was unable or , owing to such fear , unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . This applied irrespective of whether the persecution was at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities could not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals ( LAW , LAW ) . By “ an alien otherwise in need of protection ” was meant , inter alia , a person who had left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW ) .

An alien who was to be refused entry or expelled in accordance with a decision that had gained legal force could be granted a residence permit if he or she filed a so - called new application based on circumstances which had not previously been examined , and if the alien was entitled to a residence permit under LAW , LAW , or it would be contrary to the requirements of humanity to enforce such a decision ( LAW , LAW b ) . Regard could also be had to serious illness under this provision . Such new applications were filed with and examined by ORG ( Chapter CARDINAL , LAW ) .

When it came to enforcing a decision on refusal of entry or expulsion , account had to be taken of the risk of capital punishment or torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . According to a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien could not be sent to a country where there were reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW ) .

In essence , there have not been any major changes to the provisions referred to above in LAW , with the exception of the following :

Through the enactment of LAW , ORG has been replaced by ORG and ORG ( LAW , LAW ) . Moreover , it is no longer possible to lodge so called new applications but , instead , ORG shall , on its own initiative , determine whether there is any impediment to the deportation or expulsion ( LAW , LAW ) .

Furthermore , DATE and DATE , some interim amendments to the DATE Act were in force , according to which ORG , upon application by an alien or on its own initiative , could re - determine final decisions already taken by ORG . The object of these temporary amendments was to grant residence permits to aliens who , inter alia , had been in GPE for a very long time or where there existed “ urgent humanitarian interests ” ( humanitärt angeläget ) . Special consideration was given to the situation of children .


The applicants are NORP nationals of NORP ethnic origin . The first applicant , Mr GPE ORG , was born in DATE . The second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . They reside in ORG . The third applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and resides in LOC . They were represented before ORG by PERSON and PERSON B. Pleše of ORG in GPE as well as by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising respectively in PERSON and PERSON ( GPE ) . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , their Agent .

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

In DATE , CARDINAL ORG families , including the first and the second applicant , came to work in an agricultural co - operative located in the municipality of PERSON . Shortly after their arrival , each of the families received permanent residence under NORP law in what are DATE the municipalities of ORG and PERSON .

At DATE the agricultural co - operative in PERSON ceased operations . As a result , the above GPE families lost their jobs . Since DATE at the co - operative were linked to their employment , they were compelled to leave them . DATE were subsequently destroyed .

In DATE the first and second applicant and the other GPE returned to the municipalities of GPE and ORG where they were legally registered . At various periods of time over DATE they lived in temporary housing provided by local government authorities in the district of ORG . On several occasions , hostility towards the GPE on the part of local officials or non - NORP residents forced the NORP families to flee . Thus , DATE , ORG reserved a trailer in Čabiny for the Romani families at a cost of CARDINAL NORP korunas . Although the GPE raised the money to rent the trailer , the villages of PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON did not allow them to place the trailer on their territory . After the ORG had built temporary dwellings for themselves in ORG , the dwellings were torn down by non - Romani residents . For DATE the GPE were therefore moving frequently from CARDINAL place to another , in search of a permanent and secure home .

In DATE the ORG families again established temporary dwellings on agricultural land located in the village of ORG . Local authorities , apparently responding to anti - Roma sentiment among the non - Romani majority , called a meeting on CARDINAL DATE , to deal with what they referred to as “ the problem of GPE in the district of ORG . ”

The written record indicates that the meeting took place in the premises of ORG and that it was attended by the mayors of ORG , ORG and ORG . The director of ORG of ORG and a representative of the Head of ORG were also present .

At the meeting , the director of ORG recounted the different attempts to solve the problem of the homeless GPE from the time of the destruction of their dwellings in the PERSON community in DATE . Noting the legal obligations of local authorities to address problems of shelter laid down in NORP law he observed , in particular , that there were GPE homeless in the register of ORG community and that those GPE had permanent residence in GPE , GPE and ORG .

The mayor of ORG characterised as illegal the movement of GPE to the village of ORG and warned of the “ very negative reaction of citizens in the community ” who might try to “ resolve this problem by expelling them forcibly or burning the cabins . ” The mayor also noted that there had been several conflicts between ORG citizens and the GPE . He alleged that the surface water in a nearby river basin had been polluted by the latter and asked colleagues to resolve this problem as soon as possible .

The TIME further indicate that the mayors of ORG and ORG agreed to accommodate the homeless GPE , and the director of ORG undertook to visit the mayor of PERSON to explain to him the problem discussed .

On DATE an extraordinary meeting of the municipal council of ORG adopted Resolution No . DATE . Its relevant parts provide as follows :

“ The municipality representatives unanimously agree and declare that the GPE [ concerned ] are not the native inhabitants of GPE , since they only moved to PERSON from the villages PERSON and GPE . In DATE , CARDINAL family moved into the village as the employees of the co - operative PERSON , with the assistance of the former director of the co - operative ...

In DATE ... the deputy mayor in PERSON gave the GPE permanent residence in PERSON , since PERSON was only a part of PERSON , and did not exist as a separate village . The family ’s permanent residence was registered in a house , which is occupied . [ The deputy mayor ] awarded the GPE permanent residence because DATE was DATE .

In DATE the GPE left PERSON and moved to the village PERSON to look for a job .

After the separation [ of GPE and PERSON ] in DATE , the GPE neither resided in the village nor claimed their permanent residence here . Due to this , we do not consider them to be our inhabitants .

According to the evidence from the house register , CARDINAL persons ( out of CARDINAL potentially returning to the village ) have their permanent residence in GPE : PERSON and PERSON .

Finally , the municipal council declared that , in the event the GPE forcibly settle in the village , they would be expelled beyond the district of the village with the help of all inhabitants . ”

On DATE a second meeting of the mayors was convened in ORG to address “ the problem of GPE homeless in ORG community . ” It was attended by the mayors of ORG , ORG and ORG , a representative of the mayor of GPE , the director of ORG as well as by the Head of ORG .

According to the TIME , the director of ORG recalled that both PERSON and GPE municipalities had resisted providing accommodation for the persons at issue in ORG notwithstanding that the latter were entered in their housing registers . The mayor of ORG explained that the community had no place in its property where GPE could be placed . The delegate of the mayor of PERSON reasoned that , insofar as the village of PERSON had “ inherited GPE ” from the PERSON co - operative , the problem should be solved by the co - operative . The mayor of ORG and the delegate of the mayor of ORG offered to start negotiations with the management of the co - operative . The participants agreed to meet again on DATE .

On DATE the municipal council of ORG adopted Resolution No . CARDINAL , in which it forbade NORP citizens to enter the village of Ňagov or to settle in shelters within the territory of the village . The resolution provided that its effect was of permanent duration and that the mayor was responsible for its enforcement .

On DATE the dwellings built and occupied by the first and second applicant and the other GPE in the municipality of ORG were set on fire , burned and destroyed .

The applicants submit that they have at their disposal no record indicating that the prosecution authorities have taken necessary measures with a view to investigating the offence .

The Government maintain that the cabins had been built unlawfully and that the incident was not examined by the police as the persons concerned did not file a complaint . They further refer to statements by local inhabitants according to which the GPE involved had carried away all their clothes and valuable property before the cabins burned down . The inhabitants expressed the view that the GPE had probably set their cabins on fire deliberately with a view to forcing the public authorities to resolve their housing problem .

In an interview published in the daily PERSON on DATE the director of ORG of ORG expressed the view that the citizens of ORG had been able to solve the situation with violence which was not acceptable . He further explained that the ORG administration had no possibility of ordering the mayors to abide by the law .

On DATE a third meeting was convened in ORG . The TIME state that the above resolution of the Ňagov municipality was contrary to the relevant law because GPE homeless had permanent residence in that village . TIME continued that “ considering that the present illegal dwelling in the ORG community was terminated by the community , the GPE homeless were recommended to address themselves to municipal offices in the communities where they have permanent residence ” .

In DATE , ORG of the Good Roma Fairy Kesay Foundation in GPE , GPE , ( “ ORG ” ) , where the third applicant was employed as a researcher , sent a letter to ORG in GPE requesting an investigation into the legality of the above resolutions of the GPE and ORG municipalities . The letter asserted that the resolutions were acts of public discrimination against GPE , and that they violated the rights to freedom of movement and residence and to protection against discrimination .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that the investigation had been assigned to ORG in GPE .

In a letter dated DATE ORG provided ORG with the names of CARDINAL persons from Ňagov , including the first applicant , and CARDINAL persons from GPE , including the second applicant , and explained that they considered that their fundamental human rights had been violated by the above municipal resolutions .

On DATE ORG submitted a petition to ORG ( Ústavný súd ) pursuant to LAW . It claimed that the above ORG and GPE municipal resolutions be quashed as they violated Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the petition . The decision stated that , in view of its contents , ORG had entertained it as a constitutional complaint under LAW .

ORG noted that the rights invoked by the petitioner were designed to protect only natural persons . Since ORG was a legal person , it could not have suffered an infringement of those rights . The decision stated that individuals affected by the decisions in question were free to file a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms .

On DATE ORG notified ORG that , in view of ORG ruling , it had suspended the investigation concerning the challenged resolutions .

On DATE the first and the third applicant filed , together with another person , a petition with the Constitutional Court pursuant to LAW . They claimed that ORG should find a violation of their rights under LAW , DATE ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the LAW in that ORG . CARDINAL of the NORP municipal council unlawfully restricted the freedom of movement and residence of a group of people solely because they were GPE . They argued that all GPE in GPE suffered infringements in this respect .

On DATE , the second applicant filed a separate petition to ORG with reference to the NORP municipal council ’s ORG . CARDINAL of DATE . She argued that the resolution violated her rights to freedom of movement and residence , freedom from racial and ethnic discrimination and freedom in the choice of nationality .

By CARDINAL decisions delivered on DATE a different chamber of ORG dismissed both petitions . As to the first and second applicant , ORG held that they had not shown that the respective municipal authorities had applied the resolutions in question in a manner which would infringe the rights invoked by them . As regards the third applicant , ORG noted that he had permanent residence outside the ORG district and found no evidence that he had tried to enter or move into the community of ORG , or that the community had tried to stop him from doing so . It concluded that the third applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of his constitutional rights .

After the adoption of the resolutions in question the first and the second applicant , as well as their families , wanted to return respectively to ORG and PERSON . However , they did not return because they feared that the resolutions would be enforced , possibly by violence .

On DATE the NORP municipal council amended its above ORG . CARDINAL of DATE by declaring that it could not agree with the accommodation of NORP citizens within the village as the latter had no work and possessed neither property nor housing facilities in GPE , and did not come from there .

On DATE the ORG for human rights of ORG requested ORG to review the lawfulness of the municipal resolutions in question and to take action which might be necessary .

On DATE ORG participated at the respective meetings of the municipal councils in GPE and PERSON at which the contested resolutions were quashed by unanimous vote . In particular , the resolution of DATE adopted by the municipal council of ORG expressly stated that the resolution No . CARDINAL of DATE had not respected human rights and freedoms .

On DATE the Government passed a resolution by which it made available CARDINAL NORP korunas with a view to resolving the housing problem of the NORP families from the area of GPE and PERSON . A housing facility in ORG was purchased and rebuilt for this purpose . As from DATE it has been put at the disposal of the NORP families who had previously lived in wooden cabins situated in the area in question , including the families of the first and second applicant .

Constitutional provisions

The following relevant provisions of the LAW were in force at the period under consideration .

LAW ) prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms .

LAW ) prohibits torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .

Under LAW ) , every person has the right to protection against unjustified interference with his or her private and family life .

LAW ) guarantees the right to respect for one ’s home .

DATE ) guarantees the freedom of movement and residence .

Article CARDINAL provides that no one may suffer harm on the ground that he or she belongs to a national or ethnic minority .

Pursuant to LAW , the ORG shall review the challenges to final decisions made by central governmental authorities , local governmental authorities and local self - governmental bodies in cases concerning violations of fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens , unless the protection of such rights falls under the jurisdiction of another court .

LAW ) provides that ORG may commence proceedings upon a petition ( “ podnet ” ) submitted by legal entities or individuals claiming a violation of their rights .

LAW of DATE , as in force at the relevant time

Pursuant to LAW , a constitutional complaint could be filed by individuals or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms , by a decision of CARDINAL of the authorities set out in LAW , unless the protection of such rights or freedoms fell under the jurisdiction of another court .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , a constitutional complaint was to be lodged within DATE from DATE when the decision in question became final or , as the case might be , from the moment when a person ’s fundamental rights or freedoms were violated as a result of such a decision .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) entitled ORG to quash the challenged decision when it found , in proceedings brought upon a constitutional complaint , that a person ’s fundamental rights or freedoms had been violated .

Practice of ORG

In its finding no . I. ÚS/CARDINAL of DATE the ORG found , upon a constitutional complaint lodged pursuant to LAW , that a municipal council ’s decision concerning a local vote had violated the ORG constitutional right to participate in the administration of public matters . In the same finding ORG quashed the relevant municipal decision pursuant to LAW of LAW of DATE . A similar ORG finding was delivered , in respect of a decision of a different municipality , on DATE ( no . I. ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

ORG consistently held that , in the context of proceedings under LAW ) of the LAW , it lacked jurisdiction to draw legal consequences from its finding of a violation of a petitioner ’s constitutional right . It could neither grant damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation found . ORG considered that it was therefore for the authority concerned to provide redress to the person whose constitutional rights were violated .

Practice of ORG

In its opinion adopted on DATE ORG found , upon a communication concerning the same facts as the present case but submitted by a different person , that the municipal resolutions in question , while in force , had violated LAW ) ( i ) of LAW on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which reads as follows :

“ In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in LAW undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone , without distinction as to race , colour , or national or ethnic origin , to equality before the law , notably in the enjoyment of the following rights : ...

( d ) Other civil rights , in particular :

( i ) The right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the ORG ; ”

The ORG further noted that the resolutions had been rescinded in DATE and invited the NORP authorities to take necessary measures to ensure that practices restricting the freedom of movement and residence of GPE under their jurisdiction be fully and promptly eliminated .


Javier Borrego Borrego;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG .

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

The applicant fell ill with chronic hepatitis , which was classified as an occupational illness in DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action with ORG ( městský soud ) against her former employer seeking compensation for her diminished social capacity , and loss of income and earning capacity . Subsequently , she included claims for a contribution to her for dietary nutrition and for additional damages .

On DATE ORG received an expert opinion .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE it partly granted the applicant ’s action .

On DATE ORG ( krajský soud ) partly modified this judgment , in that it dismissed the applicant ’s request for an increase of her diminished social capacity and related default interest , stating that the applicant ’s health had improved , so that it did not warrant the requested increase . It quashed the remaining part of the judgment and remitted it to ORG for further consideration .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law ( dovolání ) .

On DATE ORG found the expert ’s opinion invalid , as there was no record about the expert ’s appointment included in the case - file . On DATE it appointed a new expert .

On DATE ORG held a hearing , at which the expert presented his opinion . The applicant objected to mistakes in the opinion .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request to transfer her case to the GPE CARDINAL ORG ( okresní soud ) .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG partly granted the applicant ’s action . It stated that the expert had remedied the mistakes and that , in any event , these mistakes had not affected his credibility .

On DATE ORG received the defendant ’s supplement to its appeal . The applicant alleged that on DATE the court had warned the defendant about the expiration of the time - limit .

On DATE ORG held a hearing , attended by the applicant ’s lawyer . It dismissed the defendant ’s appeal and ordered it to pay the costs of the proceedings into the account of the applicant ’s lawyer . On DATE this judgment became effective .

According to the applicant , ORG did not invite her to the hearing of DATE and sent the final judgment only to her lawyer , who failed to inform her about the progress of the proceedings and about their outcome .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .