CASE OF CAMPBELL AND COSANS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of P1-2;No violation of Art. 3;Just satisfaction reserved

Both Mrs. PERSON and Mrs. NORP live in GPE . Each of them had CARDINAL child of compulsory school age at the time when she applied to the Commission . The applicants ' complaints concern the use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in the ORG schools in GPE attended by their children . For both financial and pratical reasons , the applicants had no realistic and acceptable alternative to sending their children to State schools .

At the time of Mrs. PERSON 's application to ORG DATE ) , her son PERSON , who was born on DATE , was attending PERSON ORG in GPE which is situated in ORG area . In that school , corporal punishment is used for disciplinary purposes , although it was disputed before the Commission and the ORG whether it is applied to pupils below DATE . ORG had refused Mrs. PERSON 's requests for a guarantee that PERSON would not be subjected to this measure . He was , in fact , never so punished whilst at that school , where he remained until DATE .

Mrs. NORP ' son PERSON , who was born on DATE , used to attend ORG in ORG which is situated in the Fife ORG area . On DATE , he was told to report to the Assistant Headmaster on the following day to receive corporal punishment for having tried to take a prohibited short cut through a cemetery on his way home from school . On his father 's advice , PERSON duly reported , but refused to accept the punishment . On that account , he was immediately suspended from school until such time as he was willing to accept the punishment .

On DATE . PERSON 's parents were officially informed of his suspension . On DATE , they had an inconclusive meeting with the Senior Assistant Director of Education of ORG during which they repeated their disapproval of corporal punishment . On DATE , DATE after a further meeting , that official informed Mr. and Mrs. NORP by letter that he had decided to lift the suspension in view of the fact that their son 's long absence from school constituted punishment enough ; however , he added the condition that they should accept , inter alia , that " PERSON will obey the rules , regulations or disciplinary requirements of the school " . However , Mr. and Mrs. PERSON stipulated that if their son were to be readmitted to the school , he should not receive corporal punishment for any incident while he was a pupil . The official replied that this constituted a refusal to accept the aforesaid condition . Accordingly , PERSON 's suspension was not lifted and his parents were warned that they might be prosecuted for failure to ensure his attendance at school .

In the event , PERSON never returned to school after DATE . He ceased to be of compulsory school age on DATE , his sixteenth birthday .

Under NORP law , the use of corporal punishment is controlled by the common law , particularly the law of assault . The general principle is that an assault may give rise to a civil claim for damages or to prosecution for a criminal offence . However , teachers in both ORG and other schools are , by virtue of their status as teachers , invested by the common law with power to administer such punishment in moderation as a disciplinary measure . Excessive , arbitrary or cruel punishment by a teacher or its infliction for an improper motive would constitute an assault . The teacher 's power of chastisement , like that of a parent , derives from his relationship with the children under his care and is therefore not in the nature of a power delegated by the ORG . Thus , the administration of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure is , subject to the limitations imposed by the common law as described above and to any conditions incorporated in the teacher 's contract with the education authority employing him , left to the discretion of the teacher .

In the CARDINAL schools concerned , corporal chastisement takes the form of striking the palm of the pupil 's hand with a leather strap called a " tawse " . For misconduct in the class - room , punishment is administered there and then , in the presence of the class ; for misconduct elsewhere and for serious misconduct , it is administered by the Headmaster , or his deputy , in his room .

The ORG noted that , on the facts of the case , it could not be established that the applicants ' children had suffered any adverse psychological or other effects which could be imputed to the use of corporal punishment in their schools .

At the time of the events giving rise to this case , the administration of the NORP educational system was regulated by the ORG ( GPE ) Act DATE , now repealed and reenacted without material change by the ORG ( GPE ) Act DATE . Central government formulates general policy , promotes legislation and exercises supervision ; the primary responsibility for organising facilities is vested in regional education authorities who are required to secure that " adequate and efficient provision " of school education is made for their area . LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provided that " in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under LAW , the Secretary of ORG and education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that , so far as is compatible with the provision of suitable instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure , pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents " .

ORG have empowered the Secretary of ORG for GPE " to make regulations prescribing the standards and general requirements to which every education authority shall conform " in discharging its functions . According to the Government , he is not thereby permitted to change the substantive law on a teacher 's right to administer corporal punishment , which would require primary legislation . There are , in fact , no statutory provisions governing the use of corporal punishment and the utilisation of this method of discipline is a matter for the discretion of the individual teacher , subject only to the limits set by the common law and to any particular conditions in his contract of employment .

Following agreement in principle that the teaching profession should be encouraged to move towards the gradual elimination of corporal punishment as a means of discipline in schools , a consultative body - ORG , on which ORG , ORG and the teachers ' associations were represented - prepared in DATE a booklet entitled " Elimination of Corporal Punishment in Schools : Statement of Principles and Code of Practice " . The PERSON reads as follows :

" Until corporal punishment is eliminated its use should be subject to the following rules :

( i ) It should not be administered for failure or poor performance in a task , even if the failure ( e.g. , errors in spelling or calculation , bad homework , bad handwriting , etc . ) appears to be due not to lack of ability or any other kind of handicap but to inattention , carelessness or laziness . Failure of this type may be more an educational and social problem than a disciplinary one , and may require remedial rather than corrective action .

( ii ) Corporal punishment should not be used in infant classes . Its elimination from infant classes should be followed by progressive elimination from other primary classes .

( iii ) In secondary departments , only in exceptional circumstances should any pupil be strapped by a teacher of the opposite sex or girls be strapped at all .

( iv ) Corporal punishment should not be inflicted for truancy or lateness unless the head teacher is satisfied that the child and not the parent is at fault .

( v ) The strap should not be in evidence , except when it is being used to inflict corporal punishment .

( vi ) Where used , corporal punishment should be used only as a last resort , and should be directed to punishment of the wrong - doer and to securing the conditions necessary for order in the school and for work in the classroom .

( vii ) It should normally follow previous clear warning about the consequences of a repetition of misconduct .

( viii ) Corporal punishment should be given by striking the palm of the pupil 's hand with a strap and by no other means whatever . "

The above - mentioned booklet , whose issue was welcomed by the Secretary of ORG of GPE , was sent to all education authorities in DATE . The code of ORG , which was reissued in DATE , has no statutory force ; however , the courts might be expected to have regard thereto in civil or criminal proceedings concerning an allegedly unlawful use of corporal punishment , and failure to observe it might be relevant in disciplinary proceedings .

The authorities take the view that , within the guidelines set by the LAW , it is for the teachers in each school to determine the disciplinary measures needed in the school . The LAW is not incorporated into the contracts of employment of teachers in the ORG or ORG areas , although they have been recommended to abide by it .

In DATE , the Secretary of ORG for GPE appointed an independent committee of inquiry ( " ORG " ) to investigate indiscipline and truancy in NORP schools . ORG , which reported in DATE , was of the opinion " that corporal punishment should , as was envisaged in DATE , disappear by a process of gradual elimination rather than by legislation " .

The Government remain committed to a policy aimed at abolishing corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in NORP schools , but they take the view that that policy is best implemented by seeking to secure progress in this direction by consensus of all concerned rather than by statute . A working group established in DATE by ORG has been considering , inter alia , the introduction of alternative sanctions and there are , in fact , some schools in which the use of corporal punishment has ceased or will soon be abandoned . However , its continued use by teachers is apparently , according to a recent opinion survey , favoured by a large majority of NORP parents and , according to ORG report , by pupils , who even prefer it to some other forms of punishment .

Under regulation CARDINAL of ORG ( GPE ) Regulations DATE , an education authority may exclude a pupil from school if " the parent of the pupil refuses or fails to comply , or to allow the pupil to comply , with the rules , regulation or disciplinary requirements of the school " .

Under section CARDINAL of the DATE and of the DATE Education ( GPE ) Acts , if a child fails " without reasonable excuse " to attend school regularly , the parent is guilty of an offence ; unless the court otherwise determines , a child is deemed to have so failed if he has been required to discontinue his attendance on account of " his parent 's refusal or failure to comply " as aforesaid .


The applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and resident in PERSON . Before the ORG he is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by its Agent , PERSON , Attorney , Office of the Attorney ORG ) .

The facts of the case , as described mainly in the national courts’ judgments , may be summarised as follows .

The applicant is a qualified teacher who also holds a degree in special educational needs . From DATE to DATE he worked as a teacher in a prison and , from DATE to DATE , as a social environment worker ( miljøterapeut ) in a community home for young people .

The applicant began working at ORG psychiatric division in ORG ( “ the hospital ” ) on DATE . His job was classified as a social environment worker in order for him to receive a salary corresponding to his qualifications but , de facto , he mainly served as a non - qualified nursing assistant . On recruiting him the hospital expressly retained the right to make changes to his “ duty arrangements and place of service ” .

The applicant had applied for a job on the hospital ’s security ward - Ward CARDINAL , which was to be opened following the closure of the national hospital for the care for particularly difficult and/or dangerous psychiatric patients and the decentralisation of the services provided by the latter . ORG hospital had sought to recruit psychiatric nurses but there was a shortage of qualified candidates .

Awaiting the opening of LAW , the applicant served for a brief period on LAW . He worked on LAW from DATE until DATE , partly during the daytime and partly on night duty . During this period there was a certain amount of disturbance on the Ward , partly owing to the hospital ’s use of physical restraint of the patients , particularly by means of devices such as belts and straps . In the view of the applicant , as well as other employees , the hospital used physical restraints too often and arbitrarily . He raised the matter internally and also in several letters to the Chief County Medical Officer and ORG in DATE . The disturbances at the hospital were CARDINAL of the reasons why , in DATE and DATE , a special inspection was carried out of the hospital ’s psychiatric division . As to the use of physical restraints , it was noted in the conclusions of the inspection report that “ physical restraints are employed too much without proper reason ... There has been no adequate supervision and control ” .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the hospital management stating , inter alia , that the possibility of expressing professional disagreement had been exhausted , and that he therefore asked to be allowed to leave LAW . Accordingly , the applicant was temporarily transferred on DATE to work on LAW . However , the applicant did not wish to work with patients needing nursing assistance and , again at his own request , was transferred on DATE to work TIME shifts on Ward CARDINAL on a one year temporary assignment . The applicant worked on Ward CARDINAL until DATE , when he was granted sick leave . By this time serious problems had arisen between him and the other person working night shifts on that ORG and several unsuccessful meetings with superiors had been held to try to solve the problem . A further meeting was held in DATE with inter alia the hospital management , a union representative and the applicant , still on sick leave . Due to the acuteness of the problem , it was decided to place the applicant as a social environment worker in the hospital ’s ORG ( serving the hospital at large ) where , it was hoped , his pedagogic skills could be put to use . On his return to duty on DATE he worked in ORG .

The applicant was , however , not satisfied with his new functions and , on DATE , was again granted sick leave . By DATE he was fit for work , but informed the hospital that he did not intend to return to ORG because he could not accept the transfer from TIME duty on Ward CARDINAL with the resultant reduction in salary . The applicant later failed to resume work despite the fact that his employer had let it be known that this would be regarded as absence without leave . The applicant never returned to work at the hospital . No formal decision was ever made by the applicant ’s employer concerning his dismissal .

In DATE the applicant sued the hospital for unlawful dismissal , but in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found against him . On appeal , this judgment was upheld on DATE by ORG , which concluded that he was himself responsible for having brought his employment to an end .

As ORG had done , ORG praised the applicant for having aired his critical views on the use of coercive measures . However , it found no basis for associating the hospital ’s treatment of him with the conflict on LAW . Nor was there anything to indicate that his transfer to ORG had been motivated by a desire to transfer an allegedly troublesome employee from a nursing ward .

ORG found that during the relatively brief periods the applicant had worked on DATE , CARDINAL there had , except for his brief assignment on Ward DATE , been incidents perceived as negative by certain colleagues . This had been so even if there were colleagues with whom he had worked well . In general , ORG noted , his relations with colleagues had showed a negative trend . The problems had come to a peak on LOC , where the situation had become untenable .

A colleague had , at CARDINAL point , passed on confidential information that the applicant had been depressed owing to the serious illness and death of a close relative . This information was later abused by a chief physician who had stated during a meeting on personnel policy matters that he considered the applicant mentally ill . The hospital Director later expressed regret about this occurrence , noting that the applicant had not requested any evaluation of his medical state at the said meeting . In this connection , ORG stated :

“ [ The applicant ] argues that the chief physician of LAW responded to his criticism of the conditions on the LOC by asserting that he was mentally ill . Statements of this kind DATE if it is correct that this was said DATE may result in liability for the employer under section CARDINAL subsection CARDINAL , first paragraph , of LAW , although it may rightly be questioned whether it was reasonable to expect the senior consultant to respond in such a manner … However , ORG can not see that [ the applicant ] has been able to ORG establish as probable that this particular isolated incident , which was only touched upon during the submission of evidence before ORG , has caused him any financial loss . As regards compensation for any non - pecuniary damage , ORG notes that such a claim must be brought against the person who has caused the damage , i.e. the chief physician . It is accordingly unnecessary for the ORG to go more closely into the procedural provisions laid down in section CARDINAL A of LAW . ”

ORG , which heard the case anew , sat with CARDINAL professional judges and CARDINAL “ lay ” judges particularly qualified to handle labour disputes , CARDINAL representing the employer ’s side and another the employee ’s side . Normally there shall be CARDINAL such “ lay ” judges DATE from each side – outnumbering the professional judges , unless the parties agree only to have CARDINAL , like in the present case . The hearing before ORG lasted for DATE during which a total of CARDINAL witnesses were heard ( of whom CARDINAL were heard for the first time in the case ) .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( Høyesteretts kjæremålsutvalg ) refused the applicant leave to appeal under LAW ) no . CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( tvistemålsloven ) . It observed that the appeal could not be upheld without ORG departing form ORG judgment on a point where it was essential for the latter to hear evidence from the parties and witnesses or to carry out investigative measures , which it was not open to ORG to do .


Mr PERSON , an NORP national , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At the material time , he was a student and worked part time . His wife , who had already finished her university studies and was a civil servant in a federal ministry , gave birth on DATE . She carried on working while the applicant took parental leave to look after the child .

On DATE PERSON claimed a parental leave allowance ( PERSON ) .

On CARDINAL DATE his claim was turned down by the local employment office ( GPE ) on the ground that section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) provided that only mothers could claim such an allowance when a child was born .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG ( PERSON ) . He contended that that provision of LAW , under which men were not entitled to a parental leave allowance , was discriminatory and , therefore , unconstitutional .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal for the same reasons as the local employment office ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE PERSON lodged a complaint with ORG ) . He again argued that section CARDINAL ) of LAW was unconstitutional , as it was inconsistent with the principle of equality and LAW .

On DATE , after considering the complaint in private , ORG declined to accept it for adjudication on the ground that it did not have sufficient prospects of success .

Referring to its case - law , ORG held that section DATE ) did not infringe the applicant ’s constitutional rights and was not contrary to LAW . It added that even if regard was had to recent statutory amendments ( section CARDINAL of LAW had been amended by a federal law of DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant ’s complaint was unfounded , seeing that the legislature had a certain amount of time in which to adapt new rules to changes in society ( ORG an geänderte ORG ) .

NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , mothers were entitled to a parental leave allowance provided that , following the birth of their child , they took up to DATE parental leave and were eligible for maternity benefit ( PERSON – a welfare allowance payable to working mothers for a period of DATE after the birth ) .

That section was amended by a federal law of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG no . DATE ) , which came into force on DATE . It is now provided that a father may claim a parental leave allowance if he is in employment , has primary responsibility for looking after the child and the child lives under the same roof . In addition , the mother must either be entitled to parental leave as a result of the birth and have waived that right in whole or in part or , if not entitled to parental leave , be prevented by her work from looking after the child .

However , the new rules apply only in respect of children born after DATE and therefore do not cover the applicant , whose child was born on DATE .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was injured in a car accident which was caused by ORG

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ORG in ORG , ORG ( Temeljno sodišče v PERSON , ORG ) , seeking damages for the injuries sustained .

On DATE the court upheld the applicant ’s claim in part .

On DATE the ORG entered into force with respect to GPE .

On DATE , forward to the applicant ’s appeal of DATE , ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case for re - examination .

The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

Further to the reorganisation of the NORP judicial system , the case was transferred to ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON ) on DATE .

On DATE the judge to whom the case had been assigned was promoted and the case was consequently reassigned to a new judge .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

A hearing was held on DATE .

On DATE the court delivered a judgment .

The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE ORG appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) .

On DATE the court dismissed the appeal .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG of procedural shortcomings and the unfavourable outcome of criminal proceedings .

On DATE he had been acquitted of robbery by ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) partly quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the lower court .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment but reduced the applicant ’s sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The judgment , together with the court ’s reasoned opinion , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s legal - aid lawyer informed ORG that he had not found any grounds to lodge a cassation appeal in the applicant ’s case . On DATE the court conveyed that information to the applicant and its refusal to appoint another lawyer .

NORP On DATE the ORG refused to lodge an extraordinary cassation appeal in the applicant ’s case , because he had not found any grounds to do so .

On DATE the applicant made an application to ORG for the proceedings to be reopened .

On DATE the ORG appointed a legal - aid lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings for the reopening of his case . On DATE the lawyer prepared and lodged a proper application to reopen the proceedings . He argued that new facts and evidence had come to light since the applicant had been convicted , namely that CARDINAL of the witnesses for the prosecution had admitted that they had given false statements .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) decided to exempt the applicant from court fees .

On DATE ORG refused to reopen the proceedings on the grounds that the witnesses in question had not been convicted of perjury in connection with the main proceedings against the applicant , and that the arguments raised by the applicant ’s lawyer were therefore invalid .

No appeal was available under the applicable domestic law .

On DATE the applicant complained to the Court of overcrowding and inadequate medical care and detention conditions in FAC .

The applicant was detained in FAC on CARDINAL separate occasions : ( CARDINAL ) from DATE to DATE ; ( CARDINAL ) from CARDINAL DATE until DATE ; and ( CARDINAL ) from DATE until DATE . Between his first and second periods of detention the applicant was released into the community , and between his second and third periods of detention there , he was detained in the FAC hospital . He was released into the community on DATE .

The applicant submitted that throughout his detention in FAC he had been detained in overcrowded cells . He did not indicate the size of the cells in which he had been placed or the number of inmates he had had to share them with .

He did submit to the ORG , however , copies of official memoranda revealing that every three to four months or so , the governor of ORG would report to the relevant penitentiary judge along the following lines : “ ... owing to the overcrowding of [ the prison ’s ] quarters , I have been forced to place prisoners in cells with CARDINAL sq . m of living space for each person . This situation affects all cells ... ”

The official statistics published by ORG ( NORP PERSON ) show that during the applicant ’s second period of detention , overcrowding ( the degree by which the number of prisoners exceeds the maximum allowed capacity of a particular detention facility , which , in turn , is calculated on the basis of the standard of CARDINAL m² of cell space per prisoner provided for in NORP law ) at FAC ranged PERCENT in the relevant part of DATE , PERCENT and PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT and PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT and PERCENT in the relevant part of DATE , and had been PERCENT in DATE and PERCENT in DATE of DATE .

The Government acknowledged that during the relevant period , namely DATE , the overall maximum capacity of FAC had been exceeded by on average PERCENT .

The Government also submitted that DATE and DATE the applicant had been detained in CARDINAL cells , measuring DATE QUANTITY m. They submitted that no records existed to show how many prisoners had shared those cells with the applicant . In consequence , it could not be established whether or not the applicant ’s cells had been overcrowded .

As regards the final period of the applicant ’s detention , the ORG submitted that DATE and DATE , he had been placed in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m. For a total of DATE he had shared that cell with CARDINAL fellow inmates ( QUANTITY . m per person ) . During DATE , he had shared it with CARDINAL inmates ( QUANTITY . m per person ) .

It appears that all cells were clean , well - lit and ventilated .

The Government stressed that the applicant had not been confined to his cells DATE . He had been allowed TIME of outdoor exercise per day , TIME in the prison recreation room ( świetlica ) DATE and CARDINAL weekly visits to the library . Moreover , the applicant could , if he had wished to do so , have attended education and leisure courses or taken up employment offered by the prison .

The applicant , in principle , did not contest the above submissions . As regards his employment opportunities , however , he provided the ORG with copies of several letters from the prison administration and the prison authorities , which stated that his job opportunities were objectively limited owing to his disability and the fact that the rate of unemployment among prisoners was very high ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Lastly , the applicant submitted that for DATE , from DATE until DATE , he had shared a cell ( no . CARDINAL , wing III ) with an inmate who suffered from schizophrenia and had a history of violence .

The Government argued that during his detention in FAC the applicant had not shared his cell with any prisoner suffering from schizophrenia . They also pointed out that the applicant had never made any complaints to that effect to the prison authorities .

In his application to ORG DATE , the applicant also complained that he had been provided with inadequate medical care by the prison healthcare system during his detention in FAC .

The applicant suffered from ulcers , varicose veins , atherosclerosis ( hardening of the arteries ) , osteoarthritis , chronic bronchitis , asthma and a spinal hernia . His conditions were confirmed by numerous hospital records and medical certificates , issued by , among others , a public hospital in PERSON on DATE , ORG medical centre ( Zakład Opieki PERSON ) on DATE , and the FAC hospital on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . He used an orthopaedic prosthesis and was in overall poor health .

The applicant submitted CARDINAL hospital discharge reports issued shortly before his detention in DATE . The documents revealed that the applicant had been treated for spondylarthritis ( an inflammatory spinal rheumatic disease ) and chronic bronchitis and that when he was discharged he had been in a good state of health . The reports also recommended that the applicant should continue taking certain medication and should do physiotherapy exercises at home .

The applicant was certified on DATE as having a minor disability ( umiarkowany stopień niepełnosprawności ) and on CARDINAL DATE as having a significant disability ( znaczny stopień niepełnosprawności ) .

The applicant asserted that he had not received adequate medical care during his imprisonment . In particular , he submitted that he had not been allowed to have specialist orthopaedic treatment and that on several occasions he had been refused painkillers .

The Government submitted that the applicant had been provided with regular and adequate care and treatment which had complied with recommended medical practice . He had been examined by general practitioners and various specialists on CARDINAL occasions . More precisely , during his second and third periods of detention in FAC , the applicant had been examined by specialists in internal medicine ( CARDINAL times ) and physiotherapy ( CARDINAL times ) , a pulmonologist ( CARDINAL times ) , a dentist ( CARDINAL times ) , a radiologist ( CARDINAL times ) , a psychiatrist ( CARDINAL times ) , a neurologist ( CARDINAL times ) , a dermatologist ( CARDINAL times ) , a laryngologist ( twice ) , an ophthalmologist ( CARDINAL times ) and by a vascular surgeon once .

DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in FAC . He was initially placed in a cell in the general wing because of building works in the hospital wing . On DATE he was transferred to the hospital wing . The medical certificates issued in the hospital revealed that throughout the whole period in question , the applicant had received hospital treatment for his spinal arthritis and hernia , as well as for chronic bronchitis .

The applicant lodged numerous complaints with the penitentiary prison authorities concerning his allegedly inadequate medical care and other aspects of his detention but to no avail . The applicant did not lodge any complaints about overcrowding at that stage .

By letter of DATE , an officer authorised by the Director of ORG of ORG ( ORG PERSON ) informed the applicant that a complaint he had lodged concerning his unemployment in FAC had been rejected as illfounded . It was emphasised that the applicant ’s job opportunities were objectively limited owing to the nature of his disability and the fact that the rate of unemployment among prisoners was very high .

NORP By letters of DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the Directors of the FAC and ORG of ORG informed the applicant that his complaints of inadequate medical treatment in prison had been rejected as ill - founded . It was established that the applicant had received sufficient medical treatment , having been examined by specialists and prescribed medication . It was also noted that in order to provide him with better medical care , on DATE the applicant had been transferred to the hospital at FAC .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE the Director of ORG informed the applicant that , as he had claimed , the FAC medical centre had failed to undertake all the necessary measures in order to supply him with prosthetics . No further information can be derived from this document . The applicant did not make any submissions regarding this aspect of his medical conditions and healthcare .

The applicant also sought temporary leave from prison on account of his poor health ; however , on DATE the ORG refused to grant the necessary licence .

On DATE the ORG upheld that decision . The domestic courts considered that adequate medical care and treatment could be provided to the applicant by the prison system . Reference was made to the medical certificates of DATE and DATE which stated that there was no requirement for the applicant to undergo spinal surgery . The courts concluded that the applicant ’s multiple and serious health conditions did not make it impossible for him to continue serving his prison sentence .

In DATE the applicant brought a civil action against ORG for compensation in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) for non - pecuniary damage , which he had allegedly suffered owing to overcrowding and inadequate conditions of detention and medical care in FAC . He also asked to be exempted from paying court fees , on the basis that he was unemployed and had no financial resources .

On an unspecified date ORG ordered that the applicant pay court fees in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

The court later decided to grant the applicant a partial exemption from the fees and ordered that he pay the remaining fee of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .

It would appear that the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal seeking a full exemption from the court fees .

On DATE ORG returned the applicant ’s interlocutory appeal because it had not been lodged in compliance with the relevant procedural requirements namely the applicant had failed to give full details of his appeal and to submit the necessary supporting documents . On DATE the same court rejected a further interlocutory appeal by the applicant because such a remedy had not been available to him under the applicable domestic law .

It appears that the applicant sent a further request for an exemption from court fees . On DATE ORG invited him to submit a statement of his financial means in support of his request .

It appears that the full fee exemption was eventually granted .

On DATE the ORG obtained a medical expert report , which concluded that the applicant ’s medical condition , more specifically the atherosclerosis of his legs , spinal hernia , osteoarthritis , chronic bronchitis and joint deformation , did not have any connection and did not directly result from his incarceration and the conditions of his detention in FAC . It was also considered that the cause of the applicant ’s multiple health disorders was unknown but they undoubtedly dated back to a time prior to his detention .

In addition , the expert made the following findings about the applicant ’s health and treatment in FAC : the applicant ’s atherosclerosis dated back to DATE or earlier ; he was a smoker and had begun treatment for chronic bronchitis in DATE ; he had developed spinal problems in DATE ; and he received medication for stomach ulcers . The report also concluded that the medical treatment during his detention could be regarded as effective as his chronic illnesses were not getting any worse .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim on its merits ( no . IC CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . A copy of the judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that he wished to appeal against the first - instance judgment and asked the court to provide him with its reasoned opinion for the decision .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal as it was lodged out of time . On DATE the same court rejected the applicant ’s interlocutory appeal against that decision .

On DATE the applicant also complained to the Court of procedural shortcomings and the unfavourable outcome of divorce proceedings to which he was party .

On DATE ORG ruled in the applicant ’s divorce proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant for non - compliance with procedural requirements , inter alia , his failure to specify the exact nature of his appeal , namely whether he wished to have the first - instance court ’s judgment amended or quashed entirely , and his failure to pay the required court fee in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant against that decision .

NORP On DATE the applicant also complained to the Court of procedural shortcomings and the unfavourable outcome of social security proceedings he had brought .

The applicant failed to submit all the documents relating to the proceedings which were the subject of that part of the application . As a result , it is impossible for the ORG to establish exactly what happened .

On an unspecified date the applicant instituted social security proceedings for an assessment of his level of disability and his pension .

It appears that on DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicant ’s claim for non - compliance with procedural requirements , namely a failure by the applicant to pay a basic court fee ( opłata podstawowa ) in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL) . It appears that the applicant later lodged a number of interlocutory appeals , some of which were out of time . Eventually , the case was struck out on the grounds that the applicant had failed to comply with several procedural requirements , namely to pay the required basic court fee and lodge his appeals within the prescribed time - limit .

On DATE the applicant was certified as being significantly disabled .

A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice , concerning general rules governing conditions of detention in GPE and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that the conditions of their detention were inadequate , is set out in the ORG ’s pilot judgments in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . More recent developments are described in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

The provisions pertaining to medical care in detention facilities are set out in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

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

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

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the president of the GPE nad ORG alleging that he had violated his rights . At the same time he applied for the appointment of a lawyer to act on his behalf , for a waiver of court fees and for the exclusion of the ORG judges from the case due to their lack of impartiality .

Due to the applicant ’s modifications of his initial action the case was referred to LOC , subsequently the applicant challenged the impartiality of ORG judges .

On DATE the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court refused the applicant ’s request for the waiver of court fees and for the appointment of the lawyer . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

In DATE the applicant lodged further submissions and ORG discontinued proceedings as he had not paid the court fees .

On DATE ORG quashed this decision as the applicant had paid the court fees in the meantime .

On DATE ORG appointed a lawyer on the applicant ’s behalf as his financial standing had deteriorated .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s challenge of the impartiality of ORG judges for the most part and excluded CARDINAL judge from the proceedings for different reasons than the ones raised by the applicant .

On DATE the High Court admitted the applicant ’s new objection as to the impartiality of ORG judges and referred the case to the ORG which in DATE granted the applicant ’s request to modify the action and to extend it to ORG .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to examine the case - files from other proceedings as supplementary evidence .

The hearing was fixed for DATE , however , it was adjourned owing to the applicant ’s health problems . At the same time the applicant withdrew the action as regards the Ministry and applied for the entry of the GPE nad ORG to the proceedings .

On DATE ORG refused the entry of ORG , which was upheld by ORG on DATE .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision and applied for a lawyer to act on his behalf . This request was granted , however , on DATE ORG rejected the appeal on points of law .

The applicant brought a constitutional appeal and applied for a lawyer to act on his behalf . This request was granted , however , on DATE ORG rejected the constitutional appeal .

On DATE the proceedings on merits were stayed due to the applicant ’s health problems , this decision became final on DATE ; the ORG was not informed as to whether the proceedings have resumed since . Overall , throughout the whole proceedings hearings were scheduled on CARDINAL occasions , however , they all had to be adjourned due to the applicant ’s health problems or other proceedings initiated by him .

In DATE the applicant claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the above proceedings , under LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL as amended by LAW no . DATE .

As ORG did not deal with the applicant ’s request within the DATE statutory time - limit , he brought a civil action for damages against ORG on DATE . He specified the non - pecuniary damage allegedly suffered at CZK MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) .

In a letter of DATE ORG acknowledged that the proceedings were unreasonably lengthy . Taking into account the complexity of the proceedings and the applicant ’s substantial contribution to the delays , ORG awarded the applicant LAW ( EUR CARDINAL ) for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the Prague CARDINAL ORG dismissed the action holding that the proceedings on merits had been carried out smoothly without delays . The court found that in the absence of any judgment , it would be difficult to assess the complexity of the proceedings . Further , it considered that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings by not having paid the court fees in due time , by unclear claims and by applying for extensions of the action to other parties . Besides , the proceedings were affected by the applicant ’s health and his procedural requests , which could however not be invoked to the applicant ’s detriment .

The applicant appealed and challenged the impartiality of judges of ORG and ORG ; these objections were dismissed by the directly superior courts including ORG .

On DATE ( served on DATE ) ORG upheld the judgment , finding that the proceedings were primarily affected by the applicant ’s failure to conform to the procedural rules and by his procedural requests . It considered that the ORG could not be held responsible for the delays caused by a party ’s uncooperativeness or even deliberate misconduct .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against a municipality seeking compensation for the lack of diligence in maintaining the ORG property that he had recovered in the restitution proceedings . At the same time he applied for a waiver of court fees .

Later , the proceedings were joined with similar proceedings ; altogether the applicant sought payment of CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) .

The hearing was fixed for DATE , however , the applicant excused himself .

In DATE and DATE the GPE nad ORG invited the applicant to provide information documenting that he had limited means to be eligible for the waiver of court fees .

On DATE ORG refused the request for the waiver of the court fees . The applicant appealed and challenged the impartiality of the judge . On DATE the appellate court upheld this decision .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not paid the court fees despite having been invited to .

On DATE the applicant appealed this decision asserting that the requests for the payment of the courts fees had not been delivered to his new address ; in DATE he supplemented the appeal .

On DATE the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court quashed the decision finding that the applicant had not been duly invited to pay the court fees as set by the relevant procedural rules .

On DATE the applicant applied for a waiver of the court fees . In DATE and DATE ORG invited him to provide the necessary information justifying the request .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant challenged the impartiality of different judges .

On DATE ORG refused not to charge the applicant the court fees . On DATE ORG changed this decision and granted the waiver PERCENT of the court fees and dismissed the challenge of the judges’ impartiality .

On DATE the applicant challenged the impartiality of ORG judges .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had failed to pay the court fees despite having been invited to .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal as it had been filed outside the time - limit .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against this decision as filed outside the time - limit . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against this decision for the same reasons .

On DATE ORG decided on the impartiality of ORG judges .

On DATE ORG upheld the ORG decision of DATE , which became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the above proceedings .

As ORG did not deal with the applicant ’s request within the DATE statutory time - limit , he brought a civil action for damages against ORG on DATE . He specified the non - pecuniary damage allegedly suffered at CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG acknowledged that the proceedings were unreasonably lengthy and awarded the applicant CZK CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the GPE CARDINAL ORG , referring to the case - law of the ORG , dismissed the action . It reiterated that out of DATE long proceedings , the delays in DATE were attributable to the first - instance court , otherwise the proceedings had been smooth . The court found that the complexity of the proceedings had been difficult to estimate as not a single hearing had been held . Further , it considered that the importance of the proceedings for the applicant had been low given that he had not attempted to accelerate them during DATE pause and that they had been discontinued eventually as he had not paid the court fees .

On DATE ( served on CARDINAL DATE ) ORG upheld the judgment , considering that from ORG perspective the proceedings had been finished in DATE , the applicant having not duly notified his new address and having not been interested in the proceedings for DATE . Under these circumstances and with regard to the low importance of the proceedings for him , the just satisfaction awarded had been appropriate .

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 ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

On DATE PERSON lodged a motion with ORG , claiming dissolution of a co - ownership which he shared with the applicant . The land in question consisted of CARDINAL adjoining parcels and a building , which had been built as a result of the petitioner ’s and the applicant ’s financial contributions for the purpose of setting up a business .

On DATE ORG issued a decision allowing PERSON to use part of the property pending the outcome of the proceedings . By the same decision , the court prohibited the destruction of any of the facilities in the building .

Subsequently , hearings were held on DATE , PERCENT , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

By a partial judgment of DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant .

Upon appeal , on DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

DATE QUANTITY hearings and CARDINAL on - site inspection were carried out by the court .

On DATE ORG , following the applicant ’s complaint about the length of the proceedings , examined the facts and considered the complaint justified , having found that an expert opinion had not been prepared within the time - limit fixed and that no efforts had been made by the court to discipline the experts . Therefore , ORG took the case under its administrative supervision .

On DATE ORG issued a decision dissolving the co - ownership of the disputed property in favour of the applicant . The applicant was , however , obliged to pay - off the petitioner .

On DATE and on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant and the petitioner , respectively , lodged appeals against the above - mentioned decision .

On DATE ORG issued a decision forbidding the petitioner from taking down a fence .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG set aside the decision of DATE because of procedural mistakes committed in the proceedings and remitted the case to the first - instance court for reexamination .

On DATE ORG set aside the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer withdrew from the case .

On DATE new expert evidence was ordered .

On DATE the expert report was submitted to the court .

On DATE a hearing was held .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings because GPE , another co - owner of the property , had died and his legal successors had to be identified .

On DATE the information about the legal successors was submitted to the court . On DATE ORG dismissed the request to resume the proceedings . On DATE ORG quashed this decision .

On DATE the court decided to stay the proceedings pending the examination of a motion for the acquisition of the property by prescription , submitted by ORG

On DATE the court held a hearing in order to examine the applicant ’s claim for the return of a part of the building already granted to her by previous judgments .

On DATE ORG issued a decision prohibiting the petitioner from carrying out reconstruction works .

On DATE the trial court dismissed the petitioner ’s appeal against the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a motion concerning CARDINAL expert opinions and requested the court to resume the proceedings .

On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings .

On DATE a hearing took place before ORG . The court ordered the preparation of an expert opinion .

On DATE the court held a hearing .

On DATE GPE submitted his expert opinion to the court .

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s request , the trial court ordered a supplementary opinion to be prepared by GPE

On DATE GPE submitted the supplementary opinion .

On DATE a hearing was held . Neither the applicant ’s curator nor her lawyer attended the hearing .

On DATE a hearing was held .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings because CARDINAL of the parties to the proceedings had died .

On DATE ORG refused to resume the proceedings because the parties had failed to submit a decision confirming their inheritance rights . The proceedings were subsequently resumed on DATE .

On DATE a hearing was held before ORG . The court ordered the petitioner to submit , within DATE , the decision confirming his right to inherit .

On DATE a hearing was held before ORG . The court stayed the proceedings as the petitioner had failed to submit the decision confirming his right to inherit .

On DATE the court resumed the proceedings .

On DATE the court stayed the proceedings due to the death of CARDINAL of the parties .

On DATE a hearing was held and the court heard witnesses .

On DATE a hearing was held . The court summoned the applicant to submit her pleadings . On DATE the court appointed an expert to prepare a plan for the division of the property .

At a hearing on DATE the court heard witnesses .

DATE . On DATE the court delivered a partial decision by which it partially dissolved the co - ownership of the property .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned due to the absence of the applicant ’s curator .

On DATE the parties , including the applicant , declared their intention to sell the property and to conclude a friendly settlement . The proceedings were stayed at their request . Neither of the parties has so far requested that the proceedings be resumed .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , their Agent .

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

On DATE the applicant claimed restitution of real property before the Bratislava - vidiek ORG . The action was dismissed on DATE . The applicant appealed on DATE . On DATE ORG ordered the defendant municipality to restore the property to the applicant within DATE . The judgment became final and enforceable in DATE .

On DATE the defendant filed an appeal on points of law to the Bratislava - vidiek ORG .

On DATE the applicant requested the Bratislava - vidiek ORG to enforce ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG submitted the case to ORG for a decision on the defendant ’s appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG returned the case to ORG as the defendant had not paid the fees in full . An expert opinion was ordered with a view to establishing the value of the property in issue as it determined the amount of the court fee .

On DATE the defendant municipality requested that the judgment should not be enforceable pending the outcome of the proceedings on the appeal on points of law .

On DATE the defendant paid the fees of the proceedings concerning the appeal on points of law .

On DATE the Bratislava III ORG , which had taken over the cases pending before the former GPE vidiek ORG , granted the applicant ’s request for enforcement of ORG judgment of DATE . On DATE the defendant municipality challenged this decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the defendant ’s appeal on points of law .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to order the enforcement of ORG judgment of DATE and of ORG judgment of DATE . The applicant further claimed CARDINAL NORP korunas in compensation for the deterioration of the real property .

In a letter of DATE a constitutional judge informed the applicant that his request for enforcement of a judicial decision and for damages fell within the jurisdiction of the general courts . The applicant was further informed that , as from DATE , ORG had power to examine complaints under LAW concerning alleged violations of fundamental rights and freedoms and grant just financial satisfaction in cases where such a violation was found . The constitutional judge noted that in his letter the applicant did not allege a violation of his constitutional rights . The applicant was informed that no further action would be taken in respect of his letter .

On DATE ORG upheld the enforcement order of DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the President of ORG , with reference to his above submissions of DATE , to ensure that the final decision on his claim be complied with .

LAW provides , inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay .

As from DATE , the LAW has been amended in that , inter alia , individuals and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to LAW which reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The Constitutional Court shall decide on complaints lodged by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms or of human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in international treaties ratified by GPE ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court .

When the Constitutional Court finds that a complaint is justified , it shall deliver a decision stating that a person ’s rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL were violated as a result of a final decision , by a particular measure or by means of other interference . It shall quash such a decision , measure or other interference . When the violation found is the result of the failure to act , ORG may order that [ the authority ] which violated such rights or freedoms should take the necessary action . At the same time ORG may return the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings , order that such an authority abstain from violating fundamental rights and freedoms ... or , where appropriate , order that those who violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL restore the situation existing prior to the violation .

In its decision on a complaint ORG may grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose rights under paragraph CARDINAL were violated . ” ...

The implementation of the above constitutional provisions is set out in more detail in Sections CARDINAL of Act No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( LAW ) , as amended with effect from DATE .

After DATE the ORG delivered a number of decisions in which it found a violation of LAW ) of the LAW , ordered the general court concerned to avoid any further delays in the proceedings and awarded the successful complainants financial compensation in respect of delays which had already occurred .


Violation of Art. 14+8;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE . At the time the application was lodged he lived in GPE in GPE . He currently resides in GPE in GPE .

The applicant immigrated to GPE in DATE . His request for asylum was rejected . His expulsion was , however , suspended under the agreement of the Home Secretaries of the ORG not to expel NORP nationals ( “ ORG ” der PERSON ) . In DATE the applicant obtained a provisional residence permit ( ORG ) . In DATE , following an amendment of LAW , he was issued with a limited residence title for exceptional purposes ( NORP ) . This residence title was renewed DATE , the last time in DATE until DATE . In DATE the applicant obtained an unlimited residence permit ( ORG ) .

In DATE the applicant ’s daughter was born .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ) for child benefits according to LAW ( GPE , see relevant domestic law below ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request under LAW of LAW . It noted that the applicant only had a limited residence title for exceptional purposes , and no unlimited residence permit or provisional residence permit , as required under LAW .

On DATE ORG ( GPE für GPE ) rejected his objection .

The applicant lodged an action with ORG ( ORG ) , claiming that he had been residing in GPE since DATE and that he should , therefore , have the right to child benefits .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action regarding child benefits DATE . It confirmed that only aliens with an unlimited residence permit or with a provisional residence permit were entitled to the payment of child benefits under LAW of LAW , as in force until DATE . According to ORG , the legislature had only intended to grant child benefits to aliens who were likely to stay in GPE on a permanent basis . Aliens with only a limited residence title for exceptional purposes were , however , not likely to stay . The court further pointed out that this distinction did not violate the NORP LAW . In the present case , the legislature had remained within its wide margin of appreciation in social law matters .

On DATE the ORG ( ORG ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal to the extent that his claims under LAW until DATE were concerned . ORG confirmed the lower court ’s reasoning , noting that the applicant did not have a stable residence permit in DATE , as his limited residence title for exceptional purposes had had to be renewed DATE . Likewise , referring to the wide margin of appreciation of the legislature , it took the view that LAW of LAW was compatible with LAW . In this respect , it considered that until DATE families had benefited from child benefits and tax deductions ( ORG ) as a system of compensation ( dualer PERSON ) . The applicant and his wife had paid taxes in DATE but had not obtained child benefits . In the court ’s view , this taxation , not the refusal of child benefits , might have violated LAW ; however , it was not for the social courts to decide on that matter .

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

The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint combined with a request for an interim measure . He claimed that the relevant provision of LAW was discriminatory and racist , and violated his right to respect for his family life . In addition , he alleged that the refusal of his request for child benefits infringed the principle of social justice ( PERSON ) laid down in LAW .

On DATE ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) refused to entertain his complaint and rejected his request for an interim measure .

On DATE ORG decided that it was not competent to deal with the applicant ’s claims regarding child benefits for the period after DATE and transferred the proceedings to ORG ( ORG ) . The proceedings before ORG are still pending .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ( PERSON - gesetz , ORG - PERSON , S. CARDINAL ) , as in force until DATE , provided for the payment of child benefits which are financed by ORG Section CARDINAL , as far as relevant , provided as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Under the provisions of the present Act , anybody is entitled to child benefits for his or her children ... ,

NORP who has a place of residence ( PERSON ) or regular residence ( gewöhnlicher ORG ) within the scope of the present Act ,

( CARDINAL ) An alien is entitled to a benefit under LAW , if he has a residence permit or a provisional residence permit . ... ”

Following a reform of the law on child benefits with effect from DATE , an equivalent provision on child benefits is to be found in LAW of LAW ( Einkommenssteuergesetz ) .

By decision of DATE ( CARDINAL BvL CARDINAL , CARDINAL BvL CARDINAL , PERCENT ) , ORG ruled that LAW in the above cited version was incompatible with the right to equal treatment under LAW . Accordingly , the legislator was ordered to amend the law by DATE .

The Federal Constitutional Court found , in particular , that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residence permit lacked sufficient justification . As the granting of child benefits related to the protection of family life under LAW , very weighty reasons would have to be put forward to justify unequal treatment . Such reasons were not apparent . In so far as the provision was aimed at limiting the granting of child benefits to those aliens who where likely to stay permanently in GPE , the criteria applied were inappropriate to reach that aim . The fact that a person was in possession of a limited residence title did not form a sufficient basis to predict the duration of his or her stay in GPE . ORG did not discern any other reasons justifying the unequal treatment .


Violation of Art. 2;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Matti Pellonpää;Nicolas Bratza;Simon Brown

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

Around TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant 's husband , solicitor PERSON , was killed in front of her and their CARDINAL children by CARDINAL masked men who broke into their home . She herself was injured , probably by a ricochet bullet . PERSON was shot in the head , neck and chest . CARDINAL bullets had struck the head and there was evidence that one or more of these had been fired within a range of QUANTITY when he was lying on the floor . DATE after the murder , CARDINAL DATE , a man telephoned the press and stated that the illegal loyalist paramilitary group ORG ( ORG ) claimed responsibility for killing PERSON DATE ORG ( Provisional IRA ) officer – not the solicitor .

Patrick GPE represented clients from both sides of the conflict in GPE and was involved in a number of high - profile cases arising from that conflict . The applicant believed that it was because of his work on these cases that prior to his murder he had received death threats , via his clients , from officers of ORG ( ORG ) and was targeted for murder . PERSON had been threatened occasionally since DATE . After acting for PERSON in a case concerning maltreatment in ORG custody , the threats apparently escalated , and clients reported that police officers often abused and threatened to kill him during interrogations at holding centres such as GPE . On DATE , DATE before his death , CARDINAL of PERSON clients reported that an ORG officer had said that the solicitor would meet his end . On DATE another client claimed that he was told that PERSON was “ getting took out ” ( murdered ) . His death came DATE after PERSON MP , then Parliamentary Under - Secretary of ORG for ORG , had said in a committee stage debate on ORG ( Temporary Provisions ) PERSON on DATE :

“ I have to state as a fact , but with great regret , that there are in GPE a number of solicitors who are unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA . ”

After the shooting , the applicant 's house was cordoned off by the ORG and a forensic examination of the scene conducted by experts . Photographs were taken and maps prepared . A scene of crimes officer examined the car believed to have been used by those responsible for the shooting and which had been found abandoned .

On CARDINAL DATE a consultant in pathology conducted a post - mortem examination .

A “ major incident room ” was set up at the LOC police station . Many suspected members of the ORG were detained and interviewed about the murder .

On DATE the ORG found CARDINAL of the weapons believed to have been used in the murder . On DATE CARDINAL members of the ORG were convicted of possessing this and another weapon and of membership of the ORG . The weapon had been stolen from the barracks of ORG ( UDR – a locally recruited regiment of the NORP army ) in DATE , and in DATE a member of the ORG was convicted of this theft .

NORP In or around DATE the police found firearms in the attic of PERSON flat . The latter was arrested . He was , according to the applicant , questioned about the ORG murder from CARDINAL to DATE . A journalist had allegedly interviewed PERSON and had told the police about the interview but declined to make a statement . The applicant alleged that PERSON denied to the police any direct involvement in the shooting but admitted that he was the quartermaster for ORG ( ORG ) , supplying weapons and recovering them after use . He is also reported as having told the police that he had been acting as an informer for Special Branch for DATE . A decision was taken on DATE not to prosecute PERSON in connection with the ORG case , apparently on the ground that there was insufficient evidence . On DATE it was decided not to proceed with CARDINAL arms charges against PERSON . The prosecution adduced no evidence and he was acquitted .

The inquest into PERSON death opened on DATE and ended DATE . Evidence was heard from ORG officers involved in investigating the death , as well as from the applicant , CARDINAL neighbours and a taxi driver whose car had been hijacked and used by those responsible for the shooting . The applicant was represented by counsel , who was able to question witnesses on her behalf . After giving evidence , the applicant wanted to make a statement concerning the threats made against her husband by the ORG but was refused permission to do so by the coroner on the ground that it was not relevant to the proceedings .

Forensic evidence showed that the victim had been hit CARDINAL times by a PERSON automatic pistol and twice by a .CARDINAL Special revolver . ORG ( D / S ) PERSON of the ORG , who was in charge of the murder investigation , gave evidence that the PERSON pistol was CARDINAL of CARDINAL weapons stolen from ORG army barracks in DATE by a member of the ORG who was subsequently jailed for theft . These weapons found their way into the hands of CARDINAL members of the ORG who were convicted of possession of the weapons and of membership of the ORG . However , the police were satisfied that those individuals had not been in possession of the weapons at the time of PERSON murder .

According to the evidence given by ORG at the inquest , the police had interviewed CARDINAL people in connection with the murder , but had found that , although their suspicions were not assuaged , and they remained reasonably certain that the main perpetrators of the murder were among the suspects , there was insufficient evidence to sustain a charge of murder . None of the QUANTITY persons had any connection with the security forces . D / S Simpson further stated that none of the suspects had any connection with the security services . He rejected the claim made by the ORG that PERSON was a member of ORG .

The inquest heard evidence that the murderers had used a red ORG car with the registration no . ORG CARDINAL , which had been hijacked by CARDINAL men from a taxi driver , ORG , shortly before the murder . D / PERSON stated that he did not think that the hijackers had carried out the murder and that the precision of the killing indicated that the murderers had killed before . He had heard that a death threat had been made in front of a prisoner who was a client of the deceased . He had also seen parts of a report by a group of international lawyers . This had been investigated by the PERSON inquiry team ( see below ) , with whom he liaised closely . Although he did not know who had been interviewed , as the PERSON inquiry was separate from the murder investigation , he said that no evidence had been found substantiating the allegation . On further questioning , he said that he had only read the report by the international lawyers that lunchtime and was unaware of the existence of material linking the security forces to PERSON death .

On DATE the Chief Constable of the ORG appointed PERSON , then Deputy Chief Constable of ORG , to investigate allegations of collusion between members of the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries ( the Stevens CARDINAL inquiry ) .

While , according to the applicant , it was claimed by the ORG at the inquest that PERSON had also investigated her husband 's death , the Government state that the inquiry was prompted by events other than the shooting of PERSON .

On DATE PERSON submitted his report to the Chief Constable of the ORG . While the full report was not made public , the Secretary of ORG for GPE made a statement to ORG on CARDINAL DATE in which he declared , inter alia , that as a result of the inquiry CARDINAL persons had been arrested , CARDINAL of whom had been reported or charged with criminal offences . He stated that while the passing of information to paramilitaries by the security forces had taken place , it was restricted to a small number of individuals and was neither widespread nor institutionalised . Any evidence or allegation of criminal conduct had been rigorously followed up . No charges had been laid against members of the ORG , but PERSON had concluded that there had been misbehaviour by a few members of the GPE . He had made detailed recommendations aimed at improving the arrangements for the dissemination and control of sensitive information .

As a result of the PERSON inquiry , PERSON , who had worked as an undercover agent providing information to NORP military intelligence and who had become the chief intelligence officer of the ORG , an illegal loyalist paramilitary group which directed the activities of the ORG , was arrested . At his trial , the NORP authorities claimed that he had got out of hand and had become personally involved in loyalist murder plots . Originally , he faced CARDINAL charges , but CARDINAL were dropped and he was eventually convicted on CARDINAL charges of conspiracy to murder , for which he was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . During the PERSON inquiry , members of the team had interviewed him . According to the Government , he had denied any complicity in the murder .

NORP In prison , PERSON allegedly admitted that , in his capacity as a ORG intelligence officer , he had himself targeted PERSON and , in his capacity as a double agent , had told his NORP army handlers about the approach at the time . It was also alleged that he had passed a photograph of PERSON to the ORG before he was killed . NORP sources further alleged that PERSON had himself pointed out PERSON house to the killers . These allegations were transmitted in a ORG programme on DATE and the transcript of the programme was sent to ORG ( ORG ) .

Following the ORG programme , the ORG asked the Chief Constable of the ORG to conduct further inquiries into the issues raised in the programme . In DATE PERSON , then Chief Constable of ORG , was appointed to conduct a second inquiry ( the PERSON CARDINAL inquiry ) . According to the Government , he investigated the alleged involvement of PERSON and members of the army in the death of PERSON ( see , however , PERSON press statement , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant stated that no member of the inquiry team contacted her or her legal representative , or any former clients of ORG , about the death threats made prior to the murder .

On DATE PERSON submitted his final report to the ORG , having submitted earlier reports on DATE and DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG issued a direction of “ no prosecution ” to the Chief Constable of the ORG .

In answer to a parliamentary question published on CARDINAL DATE , Sir PERSON MP said that the ORG had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the prosecution of any person , despite PERSON alleged confession . He refused to place copies of Mr PERSON ' CARDINAL reports in ORG library , claiming that police reports were confidential .

On DATE the applicant issued a writ of summons against ORG and PERSON , claiming damages on behalf of the estate of the deceased , herself and other dependants of the deceased . It was alleged that the deceased 's murder had been committed by or at the instigation of or with the connivance , knowledge , encouragement and assistance of the first defendant and by the second defendant , who was at all material times a servant or agent of the first defendant . It was also alleged that the first defendant had been negligent in the gathering , recording , retention , safe - keeping and dissemination of material concerning the deceased , and in the warning , protection and safeguarding of the deceased .

The applicant 's statement of claim was served on DATE and the defence of ORG on DATE . In its amended defence of DATE , it was admitted that PERSON had acted as agent for and on behalf of ORG but it was claimed that if he had had any information about the proposed attack on PERSON he had not communicated it to the ministry as he was required to do .

On DATE the applicant served further and better particulars of her case and a request for further and better particulars of ORG case . She served a list of documents on DATE . On DATE a supplemental list of documents , certified by an affidavit sworn by the Permanent Under Secretary of ORG , was served on the applicant . The applicant requested copies of those documents , which were provided on DATE . The applicant then asked to inspect the originals but was informed on DATE that ORG did not have them .

On DATE the Government stated that at a meeting between the applicant and PERSON , the Secretary of ORG for GPE , a paper was handed over to PERSON which , it was claimed , contained new material relating to the murder of PERSON . This paper was passed on to PERSON , now Deputy Commissioner of ORG , who had been appointed by the Chief Constable of the ORG to conduct an independent investigation into the murder of the applicant 's husband ( the PERSON CARDINAL inquiry ) .

On DATE , at a press conference , PERSON stated :

“ ... in DATE ... I was appointed ... to conduct the so - called ' PERSON inquiry ' into breaches of security by the security forces in GPE .

This commenced after the theft of montages from FAC .

This inquiry resulted in CARDINAL convictions and over DATE of imprisonment for those convicted .

My subsequent report contained CARDINAL recommendations for the handling of security documents and information .

All of those recommendations were accepted and have been implemented .

This ' PERSON inquiry was followed by a ' PERSON inquiry in DATE ...

At the request of the ORG I was asked to investigate further matters which solely related to the previous inquiry and prosecutions . [ The then ORG Chief Constable ] referred to our return as ' tying up some loose ends ' .

At no time , either in PERSON CARDINAL or in the original PERSON CARDINAL inquiry did I investigate the murder of PERSON ... However , those inquiries through the so - called double agent , PERSON , were linked into the murder of PERSON .

[ The ] Chief Constable of the [ ORG ] has now asked me to conduct an independent investigation into the murder of PERSON . I am also investigating the associated matters raised by ORG and the ORG Commissioner 's Report . ... ”

On or DATE charges were brought against PERSON for the murder of PERSON and against PERSON , PERSON and PERSON for offences of possession of documents containing information useful to terrorists .

It was reported by ORG that on being charged PERSON made the following statement :

“ Not guilty of the charge that you have put to me TIME . At the time I was police informer for Special Branch . On TIME of the death of PERSON I informed Special Branch on CARDINAL occasions by telephone of a person who was to be shot . I did not know at the time of the person who was to be shot . ”

PERSON solicitor told the court that his client was a paid police informer from DATE to DATE and that he had given information to the police on CARDINAL occasions before the ORG murder which was not acted upon . He also stated that , at his client 's trial on DATE on firearms charges , the prosecution had adduced no evidence and his client was acquitted . The bulk of the evidence against his client had , he alleged , been known to the authorities for DATE .

On DATE it was reported in the press that PERSON trial had collapsed when the Lord Chief Justice returned a verdict of not guilty in the absence of evidence . The prosecution had informed the court that the key witness , a journalist , was not able to give evidence due to serious mental illness .

On DATE PERSON was shot dead by gunmen , shortly after receiving threats from loyalist paramilitaries .

Further arrests were reported as having been made by officers in the PERSON inquiry in DATE , with persons being questioned in relation to the ORG murder .

On DATE the government announced in ORG that , amongst the measures proposed to the NORP government in the context of the Good Friday Agreement , was the proposal for GPE and NORP governments to appoint a judge of international standing from outside both jurisdictions to undertake an investigation into allegations of security force collusion in loyalist paramilitary killings , including that of PERSON . In the light of the investigation , the judge would decide whether to recommend a public inquiry into any of the killings .

On DATE PERSON submitted his report to the ORG . A CARDINAL - page overview with recommendations was made public . It included the following :

“ CARDINAL . I have uncovered enough evidence to lead me to believe that the murders of PERSON and PERSON could have been prevented . I also believe that the ORG investigation of PERSON murder should have resulted in the early arrest and detection of his killers .

I concluded that there was collusion in both murders and the circumstances surrounding them . Collusion is evidenced in many ways . This ranges from the wilful failure to keep records , the absence of accountability , the withholding of intelligence and evidence , through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder ... ”

He stated that his inquiries with regard to satisfying the test for prosecution in relation to possible offences arising out of these matters were continuing .

The conduct of inquests in GPE is governed by LAW ( GPE ) DATE and ORG and Procedure ) Rules ( GPE ) DATE . These provide the framework for a procedure within which deaths by violence or in suspicious circumstances are notified to the coroner , who then has the power to hold an inquest , with or without a jury , for the purpose of ascertaining , with the assistance as appropriate of evidence from witnesses and reports of , inter alia , post - mortem and forensic examinations , who the deceased was and how , when and where he died .

Under LAW , every medical practitioner , registrar of deaths or funeral undertaker who has reason to believe that a person died directly or indirectly by violence must inform the coroner ( section CARDINAL ) . Every medical practitioner who performs a post - mortem examination has to notify the coroner of the result in writing ( section CARDINAL ) . Whenever a dead body is found , or an unexplained death or death in suspicious circumstances occurs , the police of the district are required to give notice to the coroner ( section CARDINAL) .

Rules CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Coroners Rules give power to the coroner to adjourn an inquest where a person may be or has been charged with murder or other specified criminal offences in relation to the deceased .

Where the coroner decides to hold an inquest with a jury , persons are called from the Jury List , compiled by random computer selection from the electoral register for the district on the same basis as in criminal trials .

The matters in issue at an inquest are governed by LAW and QUANTITY of LAW :

“ CARDINAL . The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining the following matters , namely –

( a ) who the deceased was ;

( b ) how , when and where the deceased came by his death ;

( c ) the particulars for the time being required by ORG ) Order DATE to be registered concerning his death .

Neither the coroner nor the jury shall express any opinion on questions of criminal or civil liability or on any matters other than those referred to in DATE foregoing Rule . ”

The verdict forms used in GPE accord with this recommendation , recording the name and other particulars of the deceased , a statement of the cause of death ( for example , bullet wounds ) and findings as to when and where the deceased met his death . In GPE and GPE , the verdict form appended to the English Coroners Rules contains a section marked “ conclusions of the jury / coroner as to the death ” , in which conclusions such as “ lawfully killed ” or “ killed unlawfully ” are inserted . These findings involve expressing an opinion on criminal liability in that they involve a finding as to whether the death resulted from a criminal act , but no finding is made that any identified person is criminally liable . The jury in GPE and GPE may also append recommendations to their verdict .

However , in GPE , the coroner is under a duty ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prosecution of Offences ( GPE ) Order DATE ) to furnish a written report to the ORG where the circumstances of any death appear to disclose that a criminal offence may have been committed .

Until recently , legal aid was not available for inquests as they did not involve the determination of civil liabilities or criminal charges . Legislation which would have provided for legal aid at the hearing of inquests ( ORG , Advice and Assistance ( Northern Ireland ) Order DATE , Schedule CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) has not been brought into force . However , on DATE , the Lord Chancellor announced the establishment of an Extra - Statutory Ex Gratia Scheme to make public funding available for representation for proceedings before coroners in exceptional inquests in GPE . In DATE he published for consultation the criteria to be used in deciding whether applications for representation at inquests should receive public funding . These included , inter alia , consideration of financial eligibility , whether an effective investigation by the ORG was needed and whether the inquest was the only way to conduct it , whether the applicant required representation to be able to participate effectively in the inquest and whether the applicant had a sufficiently close relationship to the deceased .

The coroner enjoys the power to summon such witnesses as he thinks should attend the inquest ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) and he may allow any interested person to examine a witness ( Rule CARDINAL of LAW ) . In GPE and GPE , as in GPE , a witness is entitled to rely on the privilege against self - incrimination . In GPE , this privilege is reinforced by Rule CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG , which provides that a person suspected of causing the death may not be compelled to give evidence at the inquest .

In relation to both documentary evidence and the oral evidence of witnesses , inquests , like criminal trials , are subject to the law of public interest immunity , which recognises and gives effect to the public interest , such as national security , in the non - disclosure of certain information or certain documents or classes of document . A claim of public interest immunity must be supported by a certificate .

Rules DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) follow from the recommendation of ORG :

“ ... [ T]he function of an inquest should be simply to seek out and record as many of the facts concerning the death as the public interest requires , without deducing from those facts any determination of blame ... In many cases , perhaps the majority , the facts themselves will demonstrate quite clearly whether anyone bears any responsibility for the death ; there is a difference between a form of proceeding which affords to others the opportunity to judge an issue and CARDINAL which appears to judge the issue itself . ”

Domestic courts have made , inter alia , the following comments :

“ ... It is noteworthy that the task is not to ascertain how the deceased died , which might raise general and far - reaching issues , but ' how ... the deceased came by his death ' , a far more limited question directed to the means by which the deceased came by his death .

... [ Previous judgments ] make it clear that when ORG stated that one of the purposes of an inquest is ' [ t]o allay rumours or suspicions ' this purpose should be confined to allaying rumours and suspicions of how the deceased came by his death and not to allaying rumours or suspicions about the broad circumstances in which the deceased came by his death . ” ( Sir PERSON , ORG , NORP v. the Coroner for GPE and GPE , ex parte PERSON , DATE , unreported )

“ The cases establish that although the word ' how ' is to be widely interpreted , it means ' by what means ' rather than in what broad circumstances ... In short , the inquiry must focus on matters directly causative of death and must , indeed , be confined to those matters alone ... ” ( PERSON , ORG , NORP v. Coroner for LOC of GPE , ex parte PERSON and Others , ( DATE ) CARDINAL Justice of ORG )

“ ... [ I]t should not be forgotten that an inquest is a fact finding exercise and not a method of apportioning guilt . The procedure and rules of evidence which are suitable for CARDINAL are unsuitable for the other . In an inquest it should never be forgotten that there are no parties , no indictment , there is no prosecution , there is no defence , there is no trial , simply an attempt to establish the facts . It is an inquisitorial process , a process of investigation quite unlike a trial ...

It is well recognised that a purpose of an inquest is that rumour may be allayed . But that does not mean it is the duty of the Coroner to investigate at an inquest every rumour or allegation that may be brought to his attention . It is ... his duty to discharge his statutory role – the scope of his enquiry must not be allowed to drift into the uncharted seas of rumour and allegation . He will proceed safely and properly if he investigates the facts which it appears are relevant to the statutory issues before him . ” ( Lord Lane , ORG , NORP v. GPE , ex parte PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL )

The Director of Public Prosecutions ( ORG ) , appointed pursuant to ORG ( GPE ) Order DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , is an independent officer with DATE experience of the practice of law in GPE who is appointed by the Attorney General and who holds office until retirement , subject only to dismissal for misconduct . His duties under LAW DATE Order are , inter alia :

“ ( a ) to consider , or cause to be considered , with a view to his initiating or continuing in GPE any criminal proceedings or the bringing of any appeal or other proceedings in or in connection with any criminal cause or matter in GPE , any facts or information brought to his notice , whether by the Chief Constable acting in pursuance of Article PERSON ) of this Order or by the Attorney General or by any other authority or person ;

( b ) to examine or cause to be examined all documents that are required LAW CARDINAL of this Order to be transmitted or furnished to him and where it appears to him to be necessary or appropriate to do so to cause any matter arising thereon to be further investigated ;

( c ) where he thinks proper to initiate , undertake and carry on , on behalf of the ORG , proceedings for indictable offences and for such summary offences or classes of summary offences as he considers should be dealt with by him . ”

DATE LAW , inter alia , coroners and the Chief Constable of the ORG to provide information to the ORG as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Where the circumstances of any death investigated or being investigated by a coroner appear to him to disclose that a criminal offence may have been committed he shall as soon as practicable furnish to the [ ORG ] a written report of those circumstances .

( CARDINAL ) It shall be the duty of the Chief Constable , from time to time , to furnish to the [ ORG ] facts and information with respect to –

( a ) indictable offences [ such as murder ] alleged to have been committed against the law of GPE ; ...

and at the request of the [ ORG ] , to ascertain and furnish to the [ ORG ] information regarding any matter which may appear to the [ ORG ] to require investigation on the ground that it may involve an offence against the law of GPE or information which may appear to the [ ORG ] to be necessary for the discharge of his functions under this Order . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of ORG on ORG , Arbitrary and Summary Executions ( “ ORG Principles on LAW ” ) , adopted on CARDINAL DATE by ORG in Resolution CARDINAL/CARDINAL , provides , inter alia :

“ There shall be a thorough , prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extra - legal , arbitrary and summary executions , including cases where complaints by relatives or other reliable reports suggest unnatural death in the above circumstances . ... ”

Paragraphs CARDINAL of ORG on LAW contain a series of detailed requirements that should be observed by investigative procedures into such deaths .

Paragraph CARDINAL states , inter alia :

“ The investigative authority shall have the power to obtain all the information necessary to the inquiry . Those persons conducting the inquiry ... shall also have the authority to oblige officials allegedly involved in any such executions to appear and testify . ... ”

Paragraph CARDINAL specifies :

“ In cases in which the established investigative procedures are inadequate because of a lack of expertise or impartiality , because of the importance of the matter or because of the apparent existence of a pattern of abuse , and in cases where there are complaints from the family of the victim about these inadequacies or other substantial reasons , Governments shall pursue investigations through an independent commission of inquiry or similar procedure . Members of such a commission shall be chosen for their recognised impartiality , competence and independence as individuals . In particular , they shall be independent of any institution , agency or person that may be the subject of the inquiry . The commission shall have the authority to obtain all information necessary to the inquiry and shall conduct the inquiry as provided in these Principles . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL provides , inter alia :

“ Families of the deceased and their legal representatives shall be informed of , and have access to , any hearing as well as all information relevant to the investigation and shall be entitled to present other evidence . ... ”

“ A written report shall be made within a reasonable time on the methods and findings of such investigations . The report shall be made public immediately and shall include the scope of the inquiry , procedures , methods used to evaluate evidence as well as conclusions and recommendations based on findings of fact and on applicable law . ... ”

The “ LAW ” ( LAW for a ORG , Arbitrary and Summary Executions , contained in ORG on ORG , Arbitrary and Summary Executions ) provides , inter alia , in Section B on the “ Purposes of an inquiry ” :

“ As set out in paragraph CARDINAL of the Principles , the broad purpose of an inquiry is to discover the truth about the events leading to the suspicious death of a victim . To fulfil that purpose , those conducting the inquiry shall , at a minimum , seek :

( a ) to identify the victim ;

( b ) to recover and preserve evidentiary material related to the death to aid in any potential prosecution of those responsible ;

( c ) to identify possible witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death ;

( d ) to determine the cause , manner , location and time of death , as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death ;

( e ) to distinguish between natural death , accidental death , suicide and homicide ;

( f ) to identify and apprehend the person(s ) involved in the death ;

( g ) to bring the suspected perpetrator(s ) before a competent court established by law . ”

In Section D , it is stated that “ in cases where government involvement is suspected , an objective and impartial investigation may not be possible unless a special commission of inquiry is established ” .