No violation of Art. 3;Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility ratione materiae);Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

At TIME on DATE the applicant reported to the police station ( gendarmerie ) at FAC , in LOC , to be questioned in connection with a complaint lodged by a contractor , PERSON , the applicant 's former employer , who suspected him of having sabotaged his CARDINAL bulldozers .

At TIME the applicant was taken into police custody . According to the report drawn up by Mr PERSON , the police officer in charge of the investigation , the applicant ran off after learning that his wife had told the police officers that he sometimes got up during TIME . He was caught QUANTITY further on and was taken , struggling , back to the police station . There he offered further resistance , kicking out . He was restrained with the assistance of the brigade commander , PERSON .

At TIME the applicant was examined by PERSON , who , after taking his blood pressure and carrying out a cardiovascular examination and an auscultation of the lungs , found nothing amiss .

NORP The applicant was questioned again from TIME and denied having committed the offence . However , he did not dispute that he had run away from the police station and had resisted the police officers who were attempting to arrest him . According to the record of the interview , which took place at TIME , the applicant stated :

“ At TIME , when I came to the police station following your request , you told me that you suspected me of having sabotaged PERSON 's bulldozers ... You said that my wife had told you that I sometimes got up during TIME , and that is when I ran off . You managed to catch me QUANTITY further on ; I struggled to break free , but I had no intention of getting away . When you took me to the station , I again put up a struggle because I did n't want to go to prison . It is true that I tried to get away , but if I had managed to escape , I would have come back . I stamped my feet when you held me on the LOC , and if I kicked any of you , it was unintentionally . ... When I tried to run away , it was to see my wife and get her to come to the police station so that she could tell you in front of me whether I went out at TIME . ... ”

At TIME , because there was substantial , consistent evidence to justify charging him with forceful resistance to a public officer , the applicant was placed in a security cell , where he remained until TIME the following morning ( DATE ) . When questioned again by the senior police officer ( officier de police judiciaire ) , he admitted having caused the damage and signed a statement to that effect at TIME He was allowed a rest from TIME At TIME he was questioned once again and confirmed his previous confessions , adding that he was sorry that he had “ jostled ” the police officers while attempting to escape .

At TIME , after signing the record of his detention in police custody and his last statement , which , like the earlier ones , had been read aloud to him because he had stated that he could not read or write NORP very well , the applicant was released .

On DATE , DATE after being released from custody , the applicant was examined by PERSON . The medical certificate drawn up by the doctor stated : “ [ The applicant ] has heavy bruising on the right anterior deltoid , with impaired mobility of the right shoulder . There are also signs that both wrists have been bound , causing pain and reduced mobility . Lastly , he complains of lumbar pain and problems with movement ; the pain is accompanied by temporary scoliosis due to muscular contraction . His condition requires him to stop work for DATE and to receive treatment . ” The doctor prescribed DATE sick - leave . On DATE he extended the sick - leave until DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against the Le Lorrain police with the Fort - de - GPE public prosecutor , alleging assault occasioning actual bodily harm and relying on the certificate issued on CARDINAL DATE .

In the complaint the applicant stated :

“ On DATE ] ... I was received [ at the police station ] at CARDINAL p.m. , and before I had even sat down , the police officer ... started reading out a list of questions . He told me that I had put sand in Mr PERSON 's tractors , and I said that that was not true ... He then said that he would go and get my wife . I said no , because , knowing my wife , I was sure that she would have refused to follow him out of fear and she would have been worried . The police officer followed me menacingly and I ran towards the car . He then shoved and punched me , saying that I had been trying to leave and would not have come back – even though I had turned up at the station as requested . I told him to let go of me and we went back to the station . He continued to grip me more and more firmly while pushing me about , and flung me on to the front doorstep with a judo throw . The officer called CARDINAL of his colleagues , who arrived straight away . They were wearing shorts but were bare - chested . CARDINAL of them sat astride me and twisted my arm behind my back , another put his foot on my head , and the third one , after fetching a bag of handcuffs and passing it to the one who was sitting on my back , held my feet . They handcuffed me , put the chain around my neck and fastened it to my other arm . I was lying on the ground , practically strangled by the chain . ... The officers then sent me to the cell , where I remained until DATE without anything to eat ... They let me out DATE , DATE , and handcuffed me to a chair leg . The police officer questioned me again and asked me ... if I had put sand in a tractor . I said no ... The officer called me a liar and a thief ... I did n't argue and I said that I [ had ] rights . He made fun of me and made me sign a piece of paper , without even reading out what he had written on it . I signed the document without knowing what it was about , not only because of my reading difficulties but also because of his threatening tone , everything I had just gone through and the worsening pain in my shoulder ... ”

On DATE , in view of the substance of the complaint , the public prosecutor 's office initiated a police investigation .

On DATE a further complaint was lodged against the applicant by a Mr Remir , who likewise suspected him of damaging machinery , and a police investigation was started .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was taken into police custody in connection with the investigation ; he remained in custody until TIME the following morning . He was questioned by PERSON , of the FAC police ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and admitted the offence .

TIME the applicant was questioned about the circumstances in which he had been held in police custody on CARDINAL and DATE . During the interview the applicant stated :

“ On DATE I reported to the FAC police station , as I had been asked to do ... I made to leave the building to find my wife . I did so rather quickly ...

The police officer caught up with me in the street QUANTITY away from the police station ... He held me and I grabbed his arm so that I would not have to follow him to the station . He dragged me to the police station courtyard and as he said he was going to lock me up , I tried to escape . I struggled because he was holding on to me . CARDINAL other officers , not in uniform , came to help him get me inside the building . They came because I was gesticulating wildly ... The CARDINAL of them then restrained me , handcuffed me and put me in the cell . TIME , when I had calmed down , they took the handcuffs off . ... At CARDINAL point [ CARDINAL of the police officers ] took me out and handcuffed CARDINAL of my hands to a chair . When he questioned me , I admitted having sabotaged PERSON 's bulldozer by putting sand in the engine . It is true I confirm that I committed that offence ...

I did not write a letter to the public prosecutor . Since my arm hurt as a result of the struggle with the police officers , I went [ to see a doctor ] ... who told me to see a lawyer . I accordingly went to see PERSON [ who wrote a letter ] ... I knew when I signed the letter that it was to lodge a complaint against the police officers , but I did not really understand what was written in the letter ; I understood only part of it . I maintain that the police officers did all the things mentioned in the letter , but they did them only because I was putting up resistance and struggling as I did not want to stay at the police station : I wanted to go back and see my wife .

When I signed the letter I understood what it meant .

I lodged a complaint against the police officers because I was worked up and annoyed with them and I like being free and not locked up . I now regret what I did because I know I was wrong . ”

On DATE police officers from a different force ( the PERSON gendarmerie ) were instructed by the public prosecutor 's office to obtain information about the complaint lodged by the applicant on DATE . On DATE , from TIME , officers from the GPE police interviewed PERSON at his surgery as a witness . During that interview PERSON stated :

“ ... On TIME I did indeed examine PERSON . He presented with cervical and lumbar pains and showed signs of bruising . He informed me that he had been beaten by FAC . The patient did not indicate the date of the events , but my findings suggested that they could have taken place DATE or DATE that . At his request I issued a detailed medical certificate ... On DATE I ordered an X - ray of his cervical vertebrae , lumbar vertebrae and right shoulder . On DATE the patient brought back the X - rays ... The examination did not reveal any lesions to the bones or joints . I saw PERSON again on DATE at his request ; as his right shoulder was still causing him pain , I prescribed additional medical treatment . On DATE , since the medical treatment had not alleviated the pain , I referred him to the physiotherapist . I should add that as on DATE Mr PERSON complained of his left shoulder , I ordered an X - ray of that shoulder ; the results did not indicate any lesions to the bones or joints . I prescribed treatment for the left shoulder only . My client followed the course of treatment and in fact the physiotherapist informed me that the treatment had had a beneficial effect . I have not seen Mr Caloc since DATE .

When I examined Mr Caloc on DATE , he did not mention any pain in his left shoulder . It was not until DATE that he complained of pain in that region , without alluding to what had caused the pain . When I examined my patient 's left shoulder , I did not observe any loss of mobility or any deformation , but because he complained of pain , I ordered the X - ray and subsequently the physiotherapy . ”

The applicant was likewise interviewed by officers from the investigation unit of the GPE force and held in police custody from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE . It appears from the record of the interview that he was taken into custody on the instructions of the public prosecutor for the purposes of an investigation into the prima facie offence of bringing false accusations against the police officers .

During the questioning the applicant stated :

“ After being summoned by you , I came to see you of my own accord . I acknowledge that I have taken note of the statement I made to the Le Lorrain police on DATE [ in connection with the second set of proceedings brought against the applicant ] ... I did not agree with the statement ... and , not wishing to annoy the policemen , I signed the statement , but it was not my true signature . I should like to give an explanation of the events which led me to lodge a complaint with the public prosecutor against FAC police officers .

... As I did n't want the officers to go to my house , I decided to leave the police station ... The police officer ... caught up with me on the road and told me to return to the police station . I followed the police officer , after putting up some resistance . Once we were in the police station courtyard , the officer caused me to fall to the ground so he could get me into the building . At that moment , CARDINAL other officers came to his assistance . I wish to state that I was hit by the officers for no reason .

... While I was in custody ... I did receive a visit from a gentleman who was wearing ordinary clothes . He took my blood pressure and asked if everything was all right . I replied yes , but I did n't know that he was a doctor . I had not asked for a medical examination . If I had known he was a doctor , I would have told him that I had been beaten by the police officers . ... ”

On DATE ( DATE ) the applicant was again interviewed . The record of the interview includes the following passage :

“ Question : Were you subjected to any violence by the police officers after the man came to take your blood pressure ?

Reply : All the acts of violence I have reported were carried out before the man visited me . I was not beaten by the police officers after that and was not subjected to any other ill - treatment .

Question : Were the acts of violence you mention carried out while you were being arrested or afterwards ?

Reply : All the blows were inflicted while the officers were restraining me ... ”

After being released from custody , the applicant was interviewed by the Fort - de - GPE public prosecutor , to whom he repeated his statements .

On DATE , likewise , PERSON , who had examined the applicant while he was in police custody , was interviewed by officers from the GPE police investigation unit . During the interview the doctor stated :

“ It is correct that on DATE , in the afternoon ... , at the request of the FAC police , I examined [ the applicant ] ... According to the police officers , this person was very aggressive . I must stress that I was acting at the instance of the police . I arrived at the police station in ordinary clothes , without my white coat , carrying my bag . When I arrived , the police officers greeted me , saying ' Good afternoon , Dr PERSON ' as they presented to me the person I was to examine , telling him that I was a doctor . He could not have failed to realise that I was a doctor .

I can not remember whether the medical examination took place in front of the police officers . The patient appeared calm . I questioned him in creole , I think , asking if he was in any pain . He replied that he had nothing to report . I carried out a thorough medical examination of the patient : blood pressure , cardiovascular examination , auscultation of the lungs and a physical examination . I did not notice any marks – no signs of any blows , no haematomas nor anything else – during the examination . I can not remember whether the patient called me ' Doctor ' . I can state categorically that during the examination I did not observe any suspicious marks on the patient 's body and the patient did not report anything to me . ... ”

Also on DATE it was decided that no further action should be taken on the applicant 's complaint , on the ground that the information brought to the knowledge of the public prosecutor 's office did not , as it stood , warrant the institution of criminal proceedings .

On DATE the applicant lodged a further complaint with the senior investigating judge , alleging assault occasioning actual bodily harm and applying this time to join the proceedings as a civil party . The complaint referred by name to police officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

In his complaint the applicant stated :

“ On DATE I was summoned to the FAC police station ... Since I had never sabotaged PERSON 's bulldozers , let alone the CARDINAL belonging to Mr Remir [ who on DATE had likewise lodged a complaint accusing the applicant of sabotage ] ... I denied the charge to begin with . But after being subjected to serious violence , which was confirmed medically by PERSON , I admitted the facts even though they were untrue . The first policeman who questioned me told me , when I denied the charge , that my wife had already admitted that I was the one responsible for sabotaging ... PERSON 's vehicle .

I therefore told the police officer that I was prepared to go and ask my wife for an explanation . That was when the officer prevented me from leaving and started hitting me . I protested against his unlawful violence , and it was then that CARDINAL other police officers – the commanding officer and another officer – chained me up , as I said before , hit me and put me in the security cell . I was under duress , and because my shoulder and the small of my back were hurting , I was constrained to admit the offence ...

I wish to draw your attention [ to the fact ] that the doctor who came to see me at the instance of the police never told me he was a doctor ; he did not examine me and just took my blood pressure with an apparatus . ... ”

On DATE , having regard to the applicant 's complaint against the police officers and pursuant to LAW , the FAC GPE public prosecutor applied to ORG to designate the court to be responsible for the investigation or trial of the case .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer filed further pleadings with ORG .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the application , holding that as matters stood it was unnecessary to designate a court because , as the amount of sick - leave on grounds of total unfitness for work did not exceed DATE , the facts , assuming them to be made out , amounted to a minor offence ( contravention ) rather than a more serious one ( délit ) .

On DATE the applicant again lodged a civil - party application against the named police officers , alleging assault occasioning actual bodily harm , and on DATE he paid into court the sum of MONEY , set by the senior investigating judge .

On DATE the public prosecutor 's office applied for a judicial investigation in respect of the CARDINAL police officers named in the applicant 's complaint , and for an expert medical opinion to determine how long the applicant had been totally unfit for work .

On DATE the investigating judge appointed a medical expert , PERSON , to determine how long the applicant had been unfit for work .

In his report dated CARDINAL DATE the medical expert concluded as follows :

“ Having familiarised myself with PERSON medical certificate and taken into account the information available from the questioning and the [ medical ] examination of DATE ] , I can accept that on DATE [ the applicant ] presented a bruise on the right shoulder ( after having fallen from an upright position ) and pain when using his wrists and the lumbar region , problems which caused :

( a ) total physical incapacity for DATE ,

( b ) temporary total unfitness for work for DATE .

At present [ the applicant ] is , medically speaking , physically fit to carry on his usual activities without any changes . ”

In submissions dated DATE the public prosecutor sought to have the applicant 's application to join the proceedings as a civil party declared inadmissible , on the ground that even if the facts of which the applicant had complained were established , they could only amount to the minor offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and not to a more serious offence , and therefore could not be the subject of a civil - party application lodged under LAW . Those submissions were accepted by the investigating judge , who declared the application inadmissible in an order of DATE .

On an appeal by the applicant , ORG of the Fort - de - France Court of Appeal upheld the investigating judge 's order on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed on points of law and on DATE he filed his full pleadings .

NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , served on the applicant on DATE , ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG of ORG in GPE , for the following reasons :

“ In holding as they did without providing a more adequate explanation , although it was also apparent from the expert medical opinion that the alleged acts of violence had caused the appellant to be unfit to resume work for DATE and although the appellant had maintained in his complaint that he had been chained up , the judges did not provide sufficient justification for their decision .

In merely ... upholding the impugned order , which declared inadmissible the complainant 's application to join the proceedings as a civil party ... , ORG disregarded the import and scope of the principle [ that civil actions and criminal proceedings are independent of each other ] . ”

On DATE the applicant filed his pleadings with ORG of ORG .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG delegated to its president the power to make directions for any further inquiries into the facts .

On DATE the President of ORG directed that the court should inspect the scene of the events , and the visit was scheduled for DATE . Evidence was taken from the applicant on DATE . He stated :

“ During TIME I spent at the police station I was handcuffed to a wall and I remained standing against the wall all night . They had handcuffed both my hands , pulling me apart ; to be more precise , each handcuff was attached to a chain . Being in that uncomfortable position caused , among other things , an injury to my left shoulder ... ”

In an order of CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG appointed a second expert , PERSON , who on DATE submitted a report in which he stated :

“ The incident at FAC police station on DATE resulted in pain in the lumbar region and the wrists , and a bruise on the right shoulder ( an X - ray did not reveal any bone fractures ) which required medical treatment supplemented by physiotherapy to restore function . In view of the nature of those injuries and the treatment prescribed , DATE ordered by the attending physician can reasonably be accepted as a period of total unfitness for work . The occupation of a heavy - plant driver makes considerable demands on the joints of the upper limbs , in particular the shoulder joint , and can not be carried on unless that joint is functioning properly . ”

The expert report was notified to the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the President of ORG sent a letter of request to the President of ORG , seeking to have charges brought against police officer PERSON , who had in the meantime been transferred to the NORP mainland .

On DATE police officers ORG and PERSON were interviewed at their first examination by the investigating judge and were charged with assaulting the applicant . PERSON was charged on DATE . On DATE the President of ORG requested information from the commanding officer of the LOC police ( gendarmerie ) , who replied on DATE .

On DATE the President of ORG directed that the court should inspect the scene of the events .

DATE . On DATE the applicant was examined by the investigating judge . The following is an extract from the record of the examination :

“ I informed [ the applicant ] that , according to information I had obtained after PERSON PERSON had been charged ... , PERSON had not been in LOC at the material time – that is to say , on CARDINAL and DATE .

[ The applicant ] : I still wish to maintain my complaint against PERSON ... but I do n't know the names of the white policemen who hit me ... I knew police officer PERSON , who is NORP . I maintain that the CARDINAL officers beat me .

It was PERSON who threw me to the ground ; I fell on my left shoulder and he climbed on top of me to immobilise me and called CARDINAL policemen in shorts ... ; it was after the doctor examined me , after the doctor came , that I was ill - treated : they fastened a chain to me and put it around my neck DATE or to be more precise , they fastened the chain to my arms and neck and left me in a corner of the room , in the police station ; I was chained up like that all day and all night with nothing to eat ; I maintain that I was ill - treated before and after the doctor came ; I repeat that I fell on my left shoulder and had a pain in that shoulder which required DATE of massage ; it was when the officers pressed themselves against me ( before the doctor came ) that they caused pain in my right shoulder . I maintain categorically that violence was inflicted on me before and after the doctor came . ”

On DATE the President of ORG held a confrontation between the applicant and police officers PERSON and PERSON . The following is an extract from the record of the confrontation :

“ I pointed out [ to the applicant ] that , according to PERSON ... , he had not been at the FAC police station at the material time ...

[ The applicant ] replied : Police officer ... ORG , whom I recognise ... , was definitely at the police station ... ; he was one of the CARDINAL policemen who hit me . Mr Munier , who is here now , kicked me on the backside .

I pointed out [ to the applicant ] that this was the first time he had stated that he had been kicked on the backside . He replied : I maintain that PERSON did kick me on the backside .

I asked [ the applicant ] who had handcuffed him . He replied : It was Mr PERSON who handcuffed me and put the chain around my neck . Mr PERSON punched me all over .

I pointed out [ to the applicant ] that PERSON , who had examined him shortly after the events , had not mentioned any blows all over his body .

[ The applicant ] replied : I fell on my left shoulder and received the most blows on the left side of my head .

Mr Munier : I confirm the statements I made at my first examination on DATE . As to the statements which [ the applicant ] has just made , I can only say that they are untrue ; I was not there . ...

Mr PERSON : I confirm in their entirety the statements I made at my first examination on DATE . I repeat that I never hit [ the applicant ] .

[ The applicant ] : When Mr PERSON told me that my wife had said that I had put sand in the engine , I wanted to fetch my wife . When I went off to fetch her , Mr PERSON held me in the street and punched me . He punched me on my side and all over .

I did not tell PERSON that I had been punched on the side ; I mentioned my left shoulder , which hurt the most , and that was what I told the doctor .

I asked [ the applicant ] why PERSON had referred to his right shoulder in the medical certificate .

[ The applicant ] replied : I was hit on the left shoulder and I felt pain in my right shoulder ... ”

On DATE the President of ORG directed that the court should inspect the scene of the events .

On DATE the President of ORG , in the presence of PERSON and PERSON , interviewed PERSON . The following is an extract from the interview :

“ Question ... : It appears from the medical certificate issued by PERSON that on DATE ... [ the applicant ] presented with heavy bruising on the right anterior deltoid , with impaired mobility of the right shoulder ; signs that both wrists had been bound , causing pain and reduced mobility ; and , lastly , lumbar pain ... due to muscular contraction . Could the witness possibly have failed to observe [ the applicant 's ] condition , in the absence of any complaint on his part , when he examined him at FAC police station on TIME CARDINAL DATE ?

Reply : I questioned [ the applicant ] and examined him ( inspection , auscultation , palpation and mobilisation ) . [ The applicant ] did not complain of anything and I did not notice anything abnormal on his body . But it is quite possible that [ the applicant ] experienced the classic phenomenon found in road accidents , where a person who does not complain of anything immediately after the accident or for TIME feels pain DATE . It is not inconceivable that that is what happened to [ the applicant ] .

I asked PERSON for his opinion . He said : Where bruising results from muscle or ligament damage , the after - effects are frequently delayed for a period that varies according to the intensity of the traumatic impact and may be as long as DATE , and the pain arising from inflammation is likewise delayed until that moment .

PERSON : I agree entirely with the opinion of my colleague PERSON . ... Where bruising results from muscle or ligament damage , mobility is not impaired immediately , contrary to what occurs with fractures or dislocations ... ”

In additional submissions dated CARDINAL DATE ORG at ORG of Appeal sought to have police officer PERSON examined and to add to the file the papers in the proceedings brought against the applicant for forceful resistance to a public officer .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered further inquiries into the facts .

After searching for the new address of police officer PERSON , who had been transferred to the NORP mainland in DATE , the President of ORG of ORG sent a letter of request to his counterpart at ORG on DATE , seeking to have evidence taken from the police officer in question .

When examined on DATE Mr PERSON stated :

“ At the material time I was the commanding officer of FAC in LOC and was in charge of [ police officers ] ... PERSON , ... PERSON and ... PERSON . ...

On TIME of the events – I was off duty that day – Mr PERSON went to [ the applicant 's ] home , where he met [ the applicant 's ] wife . ...

In TIME I heard shouting outside my window . I went to the window , where I saw a man , who must have been [ the applicant ] , running away from the police station . Mr PERSON was giving chase QUANTITY behind . I went down straight away to lend Mr PERSON assistance . I was not in uniform . We restrained [ the applicant ] in the street ... By the time I arrived , PERSON had already caught up with [ the applicant ] and the CARDINAL of them were fighting , as [ the applicant ] was lashing out in all directions . We had to use force to restrain him and take him back to the station . Since we did not have any handcuffs , we propelled him along with his arms held behind his back ; he later complained of pain in his shoulder . Proceedings were subsequently brought against him for forceful resistance to a public officer .

Once inside the police station , we let go of [ the applicant ] , and once again he rolled about on the floor ; we consequently had to restrain him again and we handcuffed him while he was still on the ground . While those events took place , only Mr PERSON and I were present ... [ The applicant ] subsequently calmed down . I personally asked PERSON what had happened , and he told me that [ the applicant ] had run away on realising why he had been summoned to the police station . I went back home just as police officers PERSON and PERSON were arriving .

PERSON , who was in charge of the investigation , then questioned [ the applicant ] , in the company of ORG and PERSON . In the afternoon I went down to the police station and was able to make sure that everything was proceeding normally and that no violence had been inflicted on the person of [ the applicant ] ...

I can attest that he was not subjected to any violence . The only violence , if you can call it that , occurred while [ the applicant ] was being arrested , and it was necessary in view of his state of extreme agitation ... ”

On DATE ORG ordered the file on the proceedings to be forwarded to ORG , following the completion of the further inquiries . However , on DATE ORG submitted that additional inquiries should be carried out . On DATE the applicant filed pleadings with ORG .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered further inquiries to be carried out with a view to establishing the dates on which Mr PERSON had travelled to the NORP mainland . On DATE the President of ORG contacted ORG to that end ; in a letter of DATE ORG gave a negative reply .

On DATE the accused , the applicant , the witness and their lawyers were summoned to attend a general confrontation on DATE .

On DATE the President of ORG held a further confrontation between the applicant and police officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , during which PERSON also gave evidence as a witness . The record of the confrontation includes the following statements :

“ Mr PERSON : In my statement of CARDINAL DATE I said that by the time I returned home , PERSON and PERSON had arrived . DATE after the events ... it is quite possible that I made a mistake ; all I know is that [ PERSON ] went to the mainland for DATE ...

[ The applicant ] stated : Police officer PERSON , who is here in front of me , was not in FAC on DATE in question . ... [ The applicant ] confirmed that PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had been present at the material time ...

Mr PERSON : I confirm my previous statements : I did not hit [ the applicant ] at all , either while arresting him or afterwards . When we were rolling on the ground I tried as hard as possible not to hurt him . ... I can state that later on , when we were inside the police station , I did not hit him , tie a chain around him or ill - treat him in any way ...

In view of the fact that [ the applicant ] had tried to escape , I or another police officer handcuffed him while he was being questioned , but later , when we put him in the security cell , we took the handcuffs off . Whenever he was in the office , and even during periods of rest , we kept the handcuffs on him , as there was a chance that he might run away . I can confirm that when I and a colleague , whose name I no longer remember , put [ the applicant ] in the security cell , we removed the restraints ( the handcuffs ) from him – I ca n't remember exactly whether it was my colleague or I who took the restraints off – so that he was not bound in any way ; in fact , that is how I always proceed . I called the doctor because I thought that [ the applicant ] might have injured himself when he fell .

[ The applicant ] : [ After the doctor left ] , I remained in the cell and PERSON hung me up by the arms .

Question : What did he hang you on ?

[ The applicant ] : It was dark , so I could n't see . I stayed hanging up until DATE , [ and ] in the morning he let [ me ] go and took me to his office to confess the truth . He wrote a lot down and made me sign a lot of documents . I stayed inside without anything to eat .

Question [ to Mr Bavarin ] : Did you or did you not attach him to anything ?

Mr PERSON : I did not attach or suspend [ the applicant ] in any way ; indeed , security cells are designed in such a way that you ca n't hang anything up , for the detainees ' safety .

[ The applicant ] : When they put me in the security cell , there were QUANTITY police officers , PERSON , ORG and PERSON , and I remained handcuffed in the cell . It was PERSON who hung me up ; PERSON kicked me ; and PERSON was standing there and did n't do anything to me ; ... I arrived at TIME and they put me in the security cell shortly afterwards . It was not until TIME that they hung me up in the cell ; it was PERSON who hung me up and I stayed like that TIME .

Mr PERSON : At no time did I hang [ the applicant ] up in the security cell in any manner whatsoever .

[ The applicant ] : I do n't know what they attached me to ; as I said , it was dark . When DATE broke it was n't very light in the security cell . The cell was not lit up ; I did n't see a lamp or a switch or anything . I was hung up by a chain with my arms apart . I ca n't tell you the size of the chain ; there were handcuffs at both ends , but I did n't see how big the links in the chain were .

Question : How did Mr PERSON manage to hang you up ?

[ The applicant ] : He 's the one who knows what it 's like inside the cell ; I do n't know . ... PERSON put the handcuffs on both my arms ; he 's the only one who knows how he hung me up .

Question [ to Mr PERSON ] : How are security cells set out ?

Mr PERSON : There were CARDINAL security cells in the police station at the time , and they were fully in conformity with the regulations ; there were no hooks or bars inside them . As far as I recall , there were air vents of QUANTITY or QUANTITY , slightly broader than a cigarette . Our handcuffs are a standard design and can not possibly be used to hold a person 's arms apart . I fail to see how we could have hung someone up in the security cell when we had been having trouble restraining him . I can state that when PERSON PERSON took [ the applicant ] into the security cell in TIME , I was not there . The light switch for the security cell is outside the cell ; the light bulb is embedded in the thickness of the wall inside a block of reinforced glass .

Question [ to Mr Bavarin ] : How do you account for the marks which the doctor observed on [ the applicant 's ] wrists ?

Mr PERSON : Very often when you put restraints on people , they MONEY on their wrists . ”

In a judgment of DATE , delivered after the applicant had filed pleadings on DATE and DATE , ORG held , in accordance with ORG submissions of DATE and after reiterating the applicant 's and the police officers ' accounts and the medical findings , that there was no serious evidence against the officers in question .

It held :

“ Whether the CARDINAL persons placed under investigation should be committed for trial depends on the answers to the following questions :

Did any violence occur ?

PERSON referred initially to a scuffle ( DATE and DATE ) ; he later referred to blows , without giving any further details ( ' I was hit ' , ' beaten ' DATE ) , and then to unspecified blows but also to being chained up TIME ( DATE ) and all afternoon ( DATE ) ; lastly , besides that form of ill - treatment , he spoke of specific blows on his buttocks , his side , the left - hand side of his head and all over his body ( DATE ) .

Police officers PERSON and PERSON mentioned a scuffle , while the latter stated that PERSON had been taken back to the police station with both his arms held behind his back . They categorically denied that they had inflicted any blows or used a chain .

ORG 's statements , the acknowledgment by the QUANTITY police officers that they used force and PERSON medical certificate establish that some violence did occur .

NORP What form did the violence take ?

ORG and the police officers disagreed on this point , but only from CARDINAL DATE . The noticeable escalation in LOC 's successive statements as regards the severity of the violence he suffered does not make his evidence persuasive , unless it can be corroborated by the certificate issued and the statements made by PERSON .

The only visible lesion observed by the doctor was a bruise on the right shoulder . It might have been the result of a blow , but it could also have been caused by DATE . No signs of any blows were observed in the regions mentioned by PERSON at a later stage . It has therefore not been established that he was ' hit ' or ' beaten ' .

The pain , scoliosis and marks indicating that both wrists had been bound may , however , be consistent with a fall , a scuffle and being chained up .

When did the violence occur ?

According to the police officers , in DATE , at TIME , when they had to use force to restrain PERSON , who was putting up resistance after running away .

According to the complainant , in DATE , while he was offering resistance to the police officers – in any event , before PERSON visit ( statements from DATE ) DATE or before and after the doctor 's visit , including the following night ( later statements ) .

What weight can be attached to the police officers ' statement ? Their version of the events is coherent , consistent in time and credible as a whole ; their disagreement on CARDINAL specific points does not affect the overall account . There remains the possibility that they concealed their knowledge of events that had occurred after they restrained PERSON .

What weight can be attached to ORG 's statements ? The statements he gave at different times contain a fundamental contradiction , which naturally diminishes their credibility . When was he telling the truth ?

According to the complainant , from DATE , since the statements made before that date had been taken by police officers , including CARDINAL of the officers under investigation . The statements had , he argued , been distorted by his fear of the police officers and his comprehension difficulties as no interpreter was present . Those obstacles had disappeared when [ he ] was able to speak to a judge with the assistance of an interpreter . Moreover , his later statements , which referred to violence being inflicted well beyond TIME , were , in his submission , corroborated by CARDINAL circumstances : firstly , no physical anomalies had been noted during PERSON visit , yet a number of lesions had subsequently been observed by PERSON ; secondly , he had denied the offence on DATE , yet a confession had suddenly been obtained the following day . Accordingly , he argued , something had happened between the first and second medical examinations and between the denials and the confessions .

However , that reasoning is not in any way consistent with the evidence .

Even leaving aside the initial record drawn up by Mr PERSON , it is clear that in his statements of DATE , which were made with the assistance of an interpreter , PERSON gave exactly the same version of the events . Admittedly , when he was interviewed again DATE by police officers , this time from the GPE force , he retracted those statements , maintaining that he had not wanted to ' annoy ' the police officers , but on DATE ( DATE ) he reiterated his account , stating clearly : ' All the acts of violence which I have reported were carried out before the man [ Dr PERSON ] visited me ... All the blows were inflicted while the officers were restraining me . ' This third record , which was signed by PERSON in front of the officers from the GPE police , against whom there could not have been any suspicion of the acts of violence of which he complained , plainly corresponded finally to the truth in his eyes and can not be erased by his subsequent statements . If any violence had occurred while he was being questioned or ' chained up ' , he would not have failed to mention it on that occasion .

It should be noted that the allegation of a chain being tied around his neck and attached to the wall of the cell was not made spontaneously by ORG . He did not refer to that incident until his first examination on DATE by the President of ORG of ORG , although it had been mentioned much earlier in documents drawn up by his lawyer ( the pleadings filed with the registry of ORG on DATE , DATE before the hearing in that court 's ORG ) . The allegation is , moreover , wholly incompatible with the standard official design of security cells , and LOC was confused about the matter at the general confrontation on DATE .

The fact that LOC did not complain of any pain to PERSON but did to Dr GPE DATE does not necessarily mean that any violence occurred in DATE , since , as the CARDINAL doctors interviewed on DATE pointed out , pain is sometimes not felt until DATE .

Nor were the confessions of DATE necessarily the result of ill - treatment meted out TIME . PERSON was entirely at liberty to retract them shortly afterwards . Yet he did not do so until the hearing on CARDINAL DATE , having in the meantime confirmed them to other police officers and a member of the ORG legal service . There is therefore no proof at all that PERSON was ill - treated after the police officers ' initial efforts to restrain him ; only at that time was he subjected to any violence , the physical effects of which were noted by PERSON .

Who was responsible for the violence ?

Certainly not Mr PERSON , who was nonetheless formally accused by PERSON before he withdrew his accusations at the last confrontation . It has been established that that officer was in mainland GPE at the material time . Nor was PERSON responsible , since he was not at the police station at the time of the initial events and only returned later , while PERSON was being questioned . The violence was indisputably perpetrated by Mr PERSON and PERSON , who acknowledge that they used force . However , the complainant has lodged no complaint against the latter officer .

Was the violence unlawful ?

In his first version PERSON acknowledged that he had ' run off ' or left the police station ' in a hurry ' . He admitted to having ' put up some resistance ' , ' gesticulating wildly ' as the police officers sought to restrain him . In his second version he tried to deny that episode , but the observations made above on the respective weight to be attached to LOC 's CARDINAL versions are also valid here .

The use of force to restrain PERSON while he was offering resistance to the police officers who were arresting him was perfectly legitimate . The violence inflicted on that occasion did not go beyond what is acceptable in such matters : it can be concluded from the medical findings that there was a scuffle and a fall , but that no blows were struck and no weapons were used . The marks that appeared on LOC 's wrists were those commonly left by handcuffs . The answer to the fifth question is therefore ' no ' .

In conclusion , it appears after a thorough assessment of the case file that there is no serious evidence against the police officers concerned or against any other person . ”

After the applicant had appealed on points of law on DATE and filed full pleadings on DATE , ORG upheld ORG judgment on DATE , holding :

“ ORG , referring to the expert medical opinions and the evidence and statements obtained during the police investigation and the judicial investigation , set out its reasons for holding that there was not sufficient evidence of intentional violence by anybody on the person of [ the applicant ] . ”

After being held in police custody from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was charged with intentional damage to another person 's property and forceful resistance to a public officer , and the file on Mr PERSON 's complaint was forwarded to the public prosecutor 's office .

Following a further complaint against him , lodged on DATE by another heavy - plant owner , PERSON , the applicant was again taken into police custody by FAC , in the person of Mr Munier , on DATE at TIME and was detained until TIME the following morning . He admitted the offence and gave statements about his initial period in police custody in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant appeared before the Fort - de - France Criminal Court in accordance with the direct - committal procedure , but asked for time to prepare his case . He was released under court supervision and was accordingly required to report to the FAC police station on DATE and DATE . The hearing was adjourned until DATE .

At the hearing , according to the court record , there was a dispute between the public prosecutor and the defendant 's lawyers when the public prosecutor refused to exclude a witness . The lawyers went to find the Chairman of the Bar , who demanded an apology from the public prosecutor for stating that he would not be told what to do by lawyers who knew nothing about procedure . When the public prosecutor refused to apologise and asked for it to be noted in the record that the lawyers had advised him to take another look at his copy of LAW and had called him an incompetent bully , all the lawyers present left the courtroom , having had their request for an adjournment refused , and the hearing therefore continued without them . The police officers confirmed their statements , while the applicant argued that he had admitted the offence because he had been hit . In addition , evidence was heard from the doctors ( PERSON had also given evidence during the police investigation on DATE ) .

DATE . In a judgment of DATE the FAC found the applicant guilty of intentional damage to another person 's property and forceful resistance to a public officer , and gave him a DATE suspended prison sentence .

Appeals against the judgment were lodged by the public prosecutor 's office on DATE , the complainant on DATE and the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings in respect of the charges of intentional damage and forceful resistance until a final decision had been given on the applicant 's criminal complaint and civil - party application alleging assault during his time in police custody ( see above ) .

In judgments of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG again stayed the proceedings for the same reasons .

According to the information in the file , the proceedings against the applicant have not since been resumed by the public prosecutor 's office .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( since repealed ) provides :

“ Where a senior law - enforcement officer [ officier de police judiciaire ] is likely to be charged with a criminal offence , allegedly committed in the area in which he performs his duties , whether or not in the course of those duties , ... , the public prosecutor dealing with the case shall without delay submit an application to ORG , which shall proceed and determine the matter in accordance with the procedure for settling conflicts of jurisdiction and shall designate the court responsible for the investigation or trial of the case . ”

It is clear from previous cases that the procedure laid down in Article CARDINAL , which was in force at the material time , must be set in motion without delay by the public prosecutor – regardless of whether the proceedings were instituted by the prosecution or by the complainant – as soon as the senior law - enforcement officer is accused and therefore likely to be charged . Otherwise , the investigating judge and , consequently , ORG have no jurisdiction ORG , DATE , Bulletin criminel no . CARDINAL ; DATE , ibid . , no . CARDINAL ; Full court , LAW DATE , ibid . , no . CARDINAL ) .

In addition , a senior law - enforcement officer named in a complaint as the perpetrator of an offence must be regarded as likely to be charged within the meaning of Article CARDINAL ; it is not necessary to find that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the charge .

Lastly , the procedure laid down in LAW must be set in motion by the public prosecutor , regardless of whether proceedings were instituted by means of direct committal or on a complaint lodged with a civil - party application ( ORG , DATE , D. DATE , CARDINAL , note by ORG ) .


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON GPE , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON . PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE . The respondent Government are represented by Mr PERSON GPE , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicant has been disabled since childhood . He suffers from ORG 's disease ( kyphosis ) , spinal arachnoiditis , and myelopathy . Following CARDINAL operations in DATE and DATE , he also developed spastic paraparesis .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with numerous offences , including murder and theft of firearms . His pre - trial detention was extended on several occasions .

On DATE the ORG of GPE extended the applicant 's pre - trial detention until DATE . The applicant applied for release , referring to the seriousness of his condition and lack of medical assistance in the pre - trial detention facility . He also submitted medical documents indicating that he was in need of further examination and treatment at a specialised medical institution . The court decided that the applicant 's ill - health did not render him unfit for detention .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . The applicant remained in detention pending investigation and trial .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

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

DATE to DATE the applicant remained in custody pending investigation and consideration of the criminal charges against him . He was detained in remand prison no . CARDINAL in GPE . According to the documents submitted by the Government , the prison comprised a medical unit with qualified staff . The unit was licensed to carry out general treatment and therapy , lab testing , anaesthetics , intensive care , dentistry , psychiatric and substance abuse treatment , X - ray examination , ultrasonography , anti - tuberculosis treatment and surgery .

According to the medical file , the applicant received medical treatment and consultations as follows .

On DATE he was examined by a general practitioner and had general tests , including fluorography and blood tests . Noting that the applicant 's condition was typical of someone who had previously undergone spinal surgery , the doctor concluded that there was no need for any treatment .

On DATE the applicant complained about regular pain around the surgical stitches and leg cramps . He was examined by the head of the medical unit who recommended a consultation with a neurologist .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a general practitioner and a neurologist . The applicant complained of pain in the lumbar and thoracic regions . The doctors detected loss of sensitivity in his left leg , loss of mass in the right shin and partial paraparesis . The doctors prescribed pentoxyfilline , lucetam , cavinton , and diclofenac . The latter medication was not administered in view of the low severity of the pain . It was further recommended that the applicant undergo an X - ray examination and consult a neurosurgeon . The applicant received the remainder of the medication free of charge .

On DATE the applicant had another fluorography .

On DATE the applicant underwent an X - ray examination of the spinal cord .

On DATE a regional hospital where the applicant had undergone treatment submitted certain medical documentation concerning the applicant 's condition , including a medical certificate issued on DATE by a district outpatient clinic and confirming that the applicant had undergone CARDINAL operations on the spinal cord and that he was in need of further examination and another operation .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurosurgeon from a regional hospital . He confirmed the earlier diagnosis , noting that the applicant 's condition did not call for urgent surgery . He considered that , subject to the results of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography of the spinal cord , the applicant might require another operation on the spinal cord .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist .

On DATE the remand prison prepared the documents necessary for the applicant 's disability assessment .

On DATE the Chief Medical Expert Bureau of GPE examined the applicant 's medical file and classified his disability as “ category CARDINAL ” . The applicant 's appeal was to no avail .

The DATE Law on the conditions of detention of suspects and accused ( закон « О содержании под стражей подозреваемых и обвиняемых в совершении преступлений » ) ( as amended ) provides that inmates are entitled to medical assistance ( section CARDINAL ) . If an inmate 's health deteriorates , the medical officers of the remand prison are obliged to examine him promptly and inform him of the results of the examination in writing . If the inmate requests to be examined by staff of other medical institutions , the administration of the detention facility is to organise such an examination . If the administration refuses , the refusal can be appealed against to a prosecutor or court . If an inmate suffers from a serious disease , the administration of the remand prison is obliged immediately to inform the prosecutor , who can carry out an inquiry into the matter ( section CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13+2

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicants are :

PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , and

PERSON , who was born in DATE .

The first applicant lives in PERSON , the second and third applicants live in GPE , GPE . The first applicant is the mother of PERSON , who was born in DATE ; the second applicant is his brother and the third applicant is his sister .

At the material time ORG village was under the full control of NORP federal forces . Military checkpoints manned by NORP servicemen were situated on the roads leading to and from the settlement . The military commander ’s office was located in the village . The applicants , PERSON and other relatives lived at QUANTITY FAC ( in the submitted documents the address was also stated as CARDINAL Naberezhnaya Street ) in ORG , in the LOC district of GPE . The household consisted of CARDINAL dwellings in CARDINAL yard .

In TIME DATE PERSON , the second applicant and a number of their neighbours , including PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON . NORP , PERSON . , Mr GPE , PERSON . , PERSON . and Mr S .- M.M. , were helping the applicants’ family to saw up firewood in the area next to the courtyard . The first applicant was not at home DATE .

At TIME PERSON went to the courtyard to fetch a shovel . At that moment CARDINAL ORG vehicles arrived at the applicants’ gate . CARDINAL of them had the registration number CARDINAL with the regional number CARDINAL . Another CARDINAL ORG cars stopped QUANTITY away down the street . A large number of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles . Some of them were wearing masks ; those not masked were of NORP appearance .

The servicemen split into several groups . CARDINAL of them ran into the courtyard . PERSON saw the servicemen and ran to the house of his neighbours , the PERSON family . He told Mr PERSON and his wife PERSON that a group of military servicemen had broken into his household , that he was scared and wanted to hide in their house . CARDINAL servicemen ran after PERSON . They climbed over the ORG fence and asked the neighbours in unaccented NORP where PERSON was . Then the servicemen found him in one of the rooms , tied his hands behind his back and took him outside .

Meanwhile other servicemen quickly searched the applicants’ house . They did not explain their actions ; they neither identified themselves nor produced any documents . They ordered the family members to stay quiet . As a result of the search they took PERSON passport . The officers also searched the dwelling of the applicants’ relative Mr PERSON Immediately after the search the servicemen shut the third applicant and her relatives in the house and propped a metal pipe against the door outside to keep it closed .

In the meantime another group of servicemen made all the men who had been sawing up firewood lie face down in the snow ; a soldier stood over each of them . Mr I.Kh . asked the officers why they were there . In response , CARDINAL of the officers pointed his gun at him and said that if he kept asking questions they would take him away . The officers did not ask the men for identity documents . CARDINAL of the soldiers pulled the second applicant ’s head up from the ground and asked his colleague whether they were supposed to take this man away . The other responded in the negative .

While they were shut in the house the applicants’ relatives saw from the window the CARDINAL servicemen taking PERSON away from the ORG yard and putting him into CARDINAL of the UAZ vehicles . After that the cars drove away in the direction of PERSON .

The abduction of PERSON was witnessed by the second and third applicants , their relatives and neighbours .

NORP In support of their statements , the applicants submitted the following documents : a statement by PERSON . PERSON dated DATE ; a statement by PERSON . , undated ; a statement by PERSON . NORP , undated ; a statement by ORG . , dated DATE ; and a statement by PERSON , dated DATE .

The Government did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants . They stated that the abduction had been perpetrated by unidentified armed men and that no special operations had been conducted in ORG on DATE .

NORP Immediately after the abduction , the applicants and their relatives complained about it to the head of the GPE administration . On DATE , DATE , the applicants complained about the abduction to the LOC district department of the interior ( “ the ROVD ” ) and the LOC district prosecutor ’s office ( “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office instituted an investigation into the abduction of PERSON under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given the number DATE .

Around DATE a group of investigators from the district prosecutor ’s office visited the applicants’ house and questioned some of the family members about the events of DATE .

On DATE the first applicant wrote to the head of the ROVD and complained that her son PERSON had been abducted by NORP federal servicemen in CARDINAL ORG vehicles , one of which had had the registration number CARDINAL CARDINAL/RUS .

On DATE the head of the ROVD replied to the applicant , stating that as of CARDINAL DATE PERSON had not been detained in local detention facilities . The letter also included the following :

“ ... based on the description of the car [ provided by you to the authorities ] the investigation identified CARDINAL vehicle , which is currently being examined in connection with its possible involvement in your son ’s abduction ... ”

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the first applicant that their inquiry had not established whether federal servicemen were involved in her son ’s abduction .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation in criminal case no . DATE had been resumed because the ROVD had not carried out the necessary operational - search measures .

On DATE the investigators informed the applicants that they had opened a criminal case in connection with the abduction of PERSON .

On DATE ORG of the Interior ( “ the GPE MVD ” ) forwarded the first applicant ’s complaint about her son ’s abduction to the Shali ROVD .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG forwarded the first applicant ’s complaint about the abduction to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE for examination .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the first applicant that they had forwarded information requests concerning detention of PERSON to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , the ORG of ORG ( “ the UGA ” ) and ORG in LOC .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that they had resumed the investigation of the criminal case .

On CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE the GPE prosecutor ’s office forwarded the first applicant ’s complaints to the district prosecutor ’s office for examination .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that they had suspended the criminal investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that they were verifying the information which she had provided in her complaint concerning the abduction .

On DATE ORG office in ORG forwarded the first applicant ’s complaint about the abduction to the GPE prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of the ORG forwarded the first applicant ’s complaint about the abduction to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE for examination .

On DATE the ORG representatives wrote to the district prosecutor ’s office and requested to be provided with an update on the criminal investigation . In particular , they asked to be informed about the following : whether the owner of the UAZ car with the registration number CARDINAL had been identified ; whether the first applicant had been granted victim status in the criminal case ; and whether she could be provided with access to the investigation file .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor ’s office that she had no information concerning the investigation of the criminal case .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that on DATE they had suspended the investigation of the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators .

According to the applicants , none of the applicants’ neighbours who had witnessed the abduction were questioned by the investigators until DATE .

According to the applicants , the investigation was suspended prematurely on numerous occasions . For instance , no proceedings were pending DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE and DATE .

On DATE and again on DATE the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor about her son ’s “ arrest ” at his house at QUANTITY on DATE . She stated that PERSON had not participated in the activities of illegal armed groups and requested the prosecutor to take measures to release him from detention .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants’ relative Mr PERSON ( PERSON uncle ) complained to the NORP district military commander and the LOC district military prosecutor about PERSON ’s abduction by officers from LOC . He stated that PERSON had been abducted from his house and that the officers had arrived in CARDINAL UAZ minivans ( ” ORG ” ) .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office instituted an investigation into the abduction of PERSON . The text of the document was not clear , as it stated that the applicants’ relative had been abducted either from the local hospital or from his house :

“ ... at TIME on DATE unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms , armed with automatic weapons , took PERSON away from the NORP central district hospital , where he had applied [ for medical assistance ] in connection with a gunshot wound to his face ; [ the abductors ] took PERSON away from his house at no.CARDINAL in FAC , GPE ... ”

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative Mr PERSON , who stated that at TIME on DATE a group of masked men in camouflage and the grey uniforms usually worn by the police had arrived at PERSON house . The witness and a number of other relatives of the applicants as well as their neighbours had been present during the abduction . The abductors had put the witness and the other men face down in the snow and demanded their identity information . The abductors , who had arrived in several vehicles , including CARDINAL ORG minivans , had taken PERSON to PERSON .

On DATE , DATE , the investigators granted PERSON wife PERSON victim status in the criminal case and questioned her . She stated that at TIME on DATE her husband had been abducted from his house by a group of masked armed men in camouflage uniforms , who had behaved aggressively and searched the house . The abduction had taken place in the presence of the second and third applicants , their relatives and neighbours . The abductors had arrived in CARDINAL vehicles , including CARDINAL grey ORG minivans .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative PERSON , whose statement about the circumstances of the abduction was similar to the one given by PERSON In addition , the witness stated that the abductors had taken PERSON to PERSON .

On DATE the investigators requested that the Shali FSB informed them whether they had detained the applicants’ relative . The text of the document included the following :

“ ... the investigation established that at QUANTITY on DATE CARDINAL vehicles , including CARDINAL ORG minivans , CARDINAL of them with the registration number CARDINAL , had arrived at [ the applicants’ ] address . Men of NORP appearance in camouflage uniforms had put PERSON in one of these vehicles and taken him to PERSON . His whereabouts have been unknown since .

You are asked to inform us of the following : did any of your employees participate in the arrest of PERSON ? Does your agency have a ORG minivan with the registration number CARDINAL and if not , do you know to which agency this vehicle might belong ? Is PERSON registered by your agency as a member of illegal armed groups ? ... ”

On DATE the first applicant complained to the GPE prosecutor about her son ’s abduction . She stated that PERSON had been abducted by representatives of NORP federal forces who had arrived at her house in CARDINAL ORG vehicles , CARDINAL of which were minivans , CARDINAL of which had the registration number CARDINAL ORG .

On DATE the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case .

On DATE the first applicant again complained to the GPE prosecutor about her son ’s abduction by representatives of NORP federal forces . On DATE she also lodged a similar complaint about the abduction with the district military commander ’s office .

DATE . On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On an unspecified date in DATE the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unsubstantiated and premature . The text of the document included the following :

“ ... the examination of the investigation file demonstrated that the preliminary investigation has been conducted passively , and the circumstances of events established by the investigators had not been fully and objectively assessed by them . For instance , the investigators had not looked into the fact that PERSON had been abducted by men in camouflage uniforms who had driven around in ORG vehicles . The investigators had failed to identify the neighbours and local residents who had witnessed the crime ; they had not examined the crime scene and had not obtained replies to their information requests from the ROVD ... and the ORG ... ”

On DATE , upon the supervising prosecutor ’s instructions , the investigation in the criminal case was resumed .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor instructed the PERSON to comply with the NORP request for assistance in the search for PERSON of DATE .

On DATE the Shali FSB informed the investigators that their employees had not been involved in PERSON arrest , that their agency did not have a ORG minivan with the registration number CARDINAL , and that they did not have any compromising information concerning PERSON .

On various dates in DATE the investigators asked a number of the district departments of the interior and the district ORG offices in GPE whether they had arrested or detained PERSON . Negative responses were received from all the agencies .

On an unspecified date in DATE the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the investigators requested ORG of ORG to inform them of the identity of the owner of a grey UAZ minivan with the registration number CARDINAL ORG .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the criminal investigation as unsubstantiated and premature . The prosecutor criticised the investigators and pointed out that they had failed to take a number of basic steps :

“ ... the investigators failed to take all the necessary measures ...

For instance , no plan of investigative action has been drawn up so far ... ;

Not all the theories concerning the identities of the perpetrators have been examined ...

The investigator PERSON had not taken a single investigative step [ while in charge of the investigation ] ...

... the crime scene has not been examined ;

The owners of the ORG vehicle with the registration number CARDINAL ORG , which was used by the abductors to take PERSON away , have not been identified ;

... to remedy the above shortcomings of the investigation , it is necessary :

To obtain responses to the information requests forwarded [ to a number of law - enforcement agencies ] ;

To request information from the ORG and the ORG concerning special operations on DATE , the units involved and the results of these operations ;

To identify and question additional witnesses ;

To find out whether the drivers of the vehicles with the registration numbers CARDINAL CARDINAL ORG had been involved in the abduction ... ”

On DATE , following orders from the supervising prosecutor , the investigation of the criminal case was resumed .

On DATE the NORP MVD informed the investigators that they had not conducted any special operations in GPE on DATE , that they had not detained PERSON and that they did not have a UAZ vehicle with the registration number CARDINAL ORG .

On an unspecified date in DATE the ORG informed the investigators that they had not conducted any special operations in ORG on DATE and that they had not detained PERSON .

On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and ordered that the proceedings be resumed . The text of the decision included the following :

“ ... the investigator PERSON had suspended the investigation of the criminal case without having taken a single one of the steps ordered by the supervising prosecutor ... ”

On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene at the applicants’ household . Nothing was collected from the scene .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Mr S .- M.M. , who stated that in DATE he had been at home when a group of masked armed men in camouflage uniforms ran into his yard looking for PERSON . They had entered the witness ’s house , found PERSON there and taken him away .

On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was suspended again for failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicants were informed about it .

On DATE the first applicant again complained to the district prosecutor about her son ’s abduction by federal servicemen . She provided a description of the circumstances surrounding the events and requested assistance in the search .

On DATE the investigators informed the applicants that they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case .

DATE . On DATE the ROVD informed the first applicant that they were taking operational - search steps to establish the whereabouts of PERSON .

On DATE the first applicant requested the investigators to inform her about the progress in the investigation and resume the proceedings .

On DATE , DATE , the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor ’s office , stating that her complaint had been fully allowed by the district court ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , but that the investigators had failed to comply with the court ’s decision and carry out an effective investigation of the criminal case . She requested the investigators to comply with the court orders and resumed the investigation .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office rejected the first applicant ’s complaint as unsubstantiated , stating that all the necessary investigative measures had been taken by the investigators . The applicant was informed about this decision .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and premature . The prosecutor criticised the investigation and ordered that the investigators took a number of basic steps which they had failed to take before .

On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , who stated that on DATE she had been visiting her parents when the second applicant had arrived at their house and informed her that PERSON had been abducted by a group of CARDINAL armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms , who had arrived at the applicants’ house in CARDINAL ORG vehicles . On DATE PERSON and his CARDINAL male neighbours and relatives had been sawing up logs next to the applicants’ yard . When PERSON saw the armed men he ran to the neighbours , while the QUANTITY other men were pushed face down in the snow by the intruders . The servicemen had searched the house , turning everything upside down , found PERSON ’s passport and taken it away with them . After the search the servicemen , who had spoken unaccented NORP , had blocked the entrance door , shutting the residents inside the house , and left , propping the door closed from outside with a metal pipe . The applicant ’s relatives Ms Zh . PERSON and PERSON had seen from the window a group of servicemen taking PERSON from the house of their neighbours , the PERSON family . PERSON ’s hands were behind his back . The servicemen had put PERSON in the grey UAZ vehicle with a registration number containing the digits CARDINAL and regional indication CARDINAL . Shortly after the abduction the first applicant and her relatives had complained to the head of the ORG village administration , PERSON , who had promised to assist them in the search for their relative . On DATE the applicants had complained about the abduction to the district prosecutor ’s office and the ROVD .

On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant ’s sister , PERSON . PERSON , and the second applicant , both of whom had witnessed the abduction of PERSON . Their statements were similar to the one given by the first applicant .

DATE . On DATE the GPE FSB informed the investigators that they had not conducted any special operations on DATE in ORG and did not have any information as to whether PERSON was involved in illegal armed groups .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ relatives PERSON and ORG , all of whom had witnessed the abduction of PERSON . Their statements were similar to the one given by the first applicant .

On DATE the investigators questioned Mr GPE , who stated that he had had a DATE UAZ vehicle with the registration number ACARDINAL BECARDINAL ORG . The car was very old , required constant repair and therefore had hardly been used . In DATE the witness had sold the car to a man in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the NORP MVD informed the investigators that they had not conducted any special operations on DATE in ORG and that they did not have any information as to whether PERSON had been involved in illegal armed groups .

On various dates in DATE the investigators received replies to their information requests from various detention centres and regional departments of the interior in LOC . All of the agencies stated that PERSON had not been detained by their officers , that he was not listed as a detainee and that no corpse with features similar to those of PERSON had been found in their areas .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour , Mr GPE , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the CARDINAL given by the first applicant .

On DATE ( in the submitted documents the date was mistakenly stated as CARDINAL DATE ) , CARDINAL and DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours PERSON . PERSON . , PERSON . NORP , PERSON . and PERSON . , all of whom had witnessed the abduction of PERSON . Their statements were similar to the one given by the first applicant and the other witnesses .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Mr S .- M.M. , whose statement about the circumstances surrounding PERSON abduction was similar to the one given by the first applicant . In addition , he stated that PERSON had run into his house to hide from the abductors , but CARDINAL or CARDINAL of them , who were in camouflage uniforms and black masks , broke in , searched the LOC , dragged PERSON outside and took him away .

On DATE the investigators again questioned PERSON wife PERSON , whose statement about the circumstances of the abduction was similar to the one given by the first applicant .

The investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of PERSON . The investigating authorities sent requests for information to the competent ORG agencies and took other steps to have the crime resolved . The investigation found no evidence to support the involvement of federal servicemen in the abduction . The law - enforcement authorities of GPE had never arrested or detained PERSON on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in his respect . No special operations had been carried out in respect of the applicants’ relative .

According to the documents submitted by the ORG , the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions , and has so far failed to identify the perpetrators . In a number of decisions to resume the investigation the supervising prosecutor criticised the progress of the proceedings , and ordered that a number of important investigative steps be taken without delay .

Despite a specific request by ORG did not disclose the full contents of criminal case no . DATE , providing only part of the documents running up to CARDINAL pages . The Government did not specify the reasons for their failure to provide the remaining documents .

On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant complained to ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) that the investigation of the criminal case was ineffective . She stated that the investigation had been suspended and resumed on a number of occasions , that she had not been provided with information about its progress , and that in spite of the fact that it had gone on for a long time it had failed to identify the perpetrators of PERSON abduction . The applicant requested the court to order the district prosecutor ’s office to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into her son ’s disappearance and to provide her with access to the investigation file .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s complaint and ordered the district prosecutor ’s office to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of the criminal case and provide the applicant with access to the case file .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law see PERSON and PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


No violation of P1-3;Not necessary to examine under Art. 14+P1-3

Antonella Mularoni;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Jean-Paul Costa;Karel Jungwiert;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zoryana Bortnovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of PERSON , Vinnitsa region .

On DATE the electoral commission of constituency no . CARDINAL refused to register the applicant as a candidate in the parliamentary elections on account of his failure to pay the electoral deposit , the amount of which was CARDINAL times the tax - free DATE income ( CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) ) . On DATE ORG upheld this decision , noting , inter alia , that the applicant had submitted all the relevant documents to the local electoral commission , but had failed to pay the electoral deposit as required by LAW of DATE .

The applicant challenged these decisions before ORG , stating that he was unable to pay the deposit as his DATE income ( MONEY ) was less than this sum .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . In particular , the court found that the applicant was free to stand as a candidate for parliamentary elections on condition that he pay the electoral deposit . The court also referred to ORG decision of DATE which stated that the deposit requirement complied with the LAW .

The relevant Articles of the LAW provide as follows :

“ ... There shall be no privileges or restrictions based on ... political ... and other beliefs ... , [ or ] property status ... ”

“ ... A citizen of GPE who has attained DATE on the date of elections has the right to vote and , if that citizen has resided in the territory of GPE for DATE , may become a member of the national parliament ... ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW as worded at the material time established that a NORP citizen who had reached DATE by DATE of the elections , had been resident in GPE for DATE before the elections and was entitled to vote was eligible to stand for election to ORG .

Under section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , a NORP citizen who was eligible for election to ORG could put forward his or her own candidature by lodging an application with the competent district electoral commission .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , at the material time a party or block of parties , and independent candidates , were required to pay , respectively , an electoral deposit of CARDINAL times and CARDINAL times the tax - free DATE income . The deposits were returned to successful candidates and parties ( that is , parties which received PERCENT of the national vote ) and money deposited by unsuccessful candidates and parties was forfeited .

Section CARDINAL provided for ORG funding of part of the expenses incurred by registered candidates during an electoral campaign . Candidates had equal access to ORG funding .

According to section CARDINAL , the competent district electoral commissions were to print CARDINAL copies of electoral posters for each registered candidate , the cost being borne by the ORG budget .

Under LAW , ORG - run local television and radio broadcasting companies were to provide each registered candidate with TIME of free air - time to present their programme to the electors . The cost was borne by the ORG budget .

On DATE ORG amended the LAW , replacing the mixed proportional / majority electoral system with party - list proportional representation .

Proceedings were initiated before ORG following a constitutional petition ( конституційне подання ) by CARDINAL members of parliament , who challenged section CARDINAL of the DATE Act on the ground that it established a property qualification , which discriminated against less successful citizens and was contrary to LAW . The Speaker of ORG and the President of GPE submitted observations on the issue . The Speaker upheld the disputed provision in principle , but expressed his concern as to the actual amount of the required deposit . The President indicated that he had vetoed the original bill during its passage through ORG on the ground that the proposed amount was excessive . According to the President , once the deposit had been substantially lowered , this measure ceased to violate human rights and freedoms .

ORG held that the electoral deposit was not a direct or indirect limitation of the right to stand for election , since it did not predetermine the citizen ’s right to elect or be elected . The deposit was no more than a precondition for the candidate ’s registration by the electoral commission . All candidates had to pay the same amount , irrespective of their financial situation , and thus it could not be considered discriminatory on grounds of property . The electoral deposit was intended both to encourage a responsible attitude towards elections on the part of potential candidates and to prevent an abuse of electoral rights . Moreover , it was aimed at preventing excessive or unreasonable expenditure of the ORG funds allocated to cover candidates’ costs .

ORG also indicated that establishment of the actual amount of the deposit fell within the discretionary powers of the political authorities and was thus outside its jurisdiction .

The electoral commission of the single - member constituency no . CARDINAL registered CARDINAL candidates for DATE parliamentary elections ( CARDINAL subsequently withdrew ) , CARDINAL of whom were independent candidates , including CARDINAL professors and a doctor who worked in a public hospital .

The electoral laws of CARDINAL member ORG require deposits to be made by candidates for election , although in some this condition applies to electoral lists , not individual candidates . Several democratic States outside LOC have also introduced this requirement ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The sum to be paid is calculated in various ways , for example , by multiplying certain amounts predetermined by law ( such as the minimum wage in GPE , the average wage in GPE ) or by applying a fixed amount ( as in GPE ) . The actual sum for individual candidates currently varies from ORG ( GPE ) to LAW ( GPE ) .

Although registered candidates usually receive various forms of support from public funds ( free television air - time , postal services , LOC for meetings , etc . ) , this is not always the case .

Deposits are normally refunded if the candidate obtains a certain percentage of the votes cast . Only the laws of GPE , GPE and GPE provide that the deposit is forfeited if the candidate does not actually win a seat .

In the PERSON case ( GPE v. Minister for the Environment [ DATE ] IEHC CARDINAL ) , the plaintiff argued before ORG that , since he was unemployed and had virtually no financial resources , he was unable to pay the deposit required for national parliamentary elections and NORP elections ( CARDINAL and QUANTITY respectively ) . In his judgment ( at paragraph CARDINAL ) , PERSON Justice PERSON summarised CARDINAL reasons which had been put forward to justify a deposit system or some equivalent filter :

“ CARDINAL . Excessively ... large numbers of citizens offering themselves for election to membership of PERSON would undermine the democratic nature of the ORG .

NORP The presence of a large number of names on a ballot paper would serve to confuse the electorate .

Voters would be likely to make a choice before reading a long list of candidates to the end and this would not serve democracy .

The more unsuccessful candidates there are in an election the more difficult it is to achieve proportional representation so that a major ... increase in the number of candidates would serve to undermine the proportional representation single transferable vote system of election mandated by LAW , LAW , subsection ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW .

The greater the number of unsuccessful candidates the more difficult it becomes for voters to predict the outcome of the election so that their ability to properly manage their vote is lost or impaired .

The counting of votes would take longer as the numbers of candidates increased and with more candidates there was a greater scope for more and longer recounts .

With many candidates seeking to persuade the electorate within the maximum period of DATE allowed by LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , election campaigns would become disruptive and the electorate could become confused or apathetic .

The process of nomination , delivering nominations , and ruling on the validity of nominations would become overwhelmed if large numbers of candidates were to stand for election . ”

Mr Justice PERSON went on to hold that the deposit system discriminated against persons of reduced means and was thus an attack on their human dignity . Having considered the justifications above , he nevertheless concluded that there was no real evidence that abolishing the deposit system would cause such serious disruption , as those arguments were based on surmise . In conclusion , he ruled that , in the absence of some alternative route to the ballot paper , the deposit system was unjust , unreasonable and arbitrary .

DATE , the deposit system was replaced by a nomination and signatures system .

In GPE v. GPE ( Attorney - General ) , the plaintiff , leader of ORG , challenged various aspects of NORP electoral law on the ground that they allegedly discriminated against small , unrepresented parties such as his .

In ORG , Justice PERSON invalidated the existing deposit rule , according to which MONEY ( ORG ) required from election candidates was only refunded in full to those who obtained PERCENT of the votes cast . Those who obtained less received only ORG CARDINAL of the original deposit . The judge found this to be in violation of LAW ( active and passive voting rights ) , and recommended the full reimbursement of the deposit irrespective of the candidate ’s score .

Before ORG , ORG did not accept the lower court ’s equation of fairness with strict equality of treatment in the matter of electoral law . He held that the essential purpose of CARDINAL of the LAW was to guarantee the right to effective representation , rather than ensuring absolute parity . Equal treatment was an important consideration , but not the only one .

In the third periodic report of GPE , the NORP delegation stated :

“ With reference to the recent case in which a political organisation had contested the amount by which electoral deposits had been raised , ORG had decided that the size of the increase would prevent people from standing for election and was therefore unconstitutional . The Government had originally amended the law to stop people from standing for frivolous reasons and obtaining large amounts of air - time in exchange for a very modest deposit . In the wake of the ORG ruling , electoral deposits had reverted to the previous amount of QUANTITY . ”

A political debate concerning the electoral deposit is currently under way in GPE .

The deposit was first introduced in DATE in the Representation of GPE , and fixed at MONEY ( GBP ) . The refund threshold was CARDINAL of the votes cast . ORG DATE reduced the threshold to PERCENT , but increased the deposit to GBP CARDINAL .

In DATE ORG , concerned by growing political absenteeism in GPE , published a report entitled “ Voting for change ” , in which , inter alia , it advocated the abolition of the deposit system . The Commission considered that this requirement clearly disadvantaged small parties and independent candidates ( for example , ORG lost all of its deposits in the DATE and DATE parliamentary elections ) .

The government did not support this proposal , considering that the elimination of the deposit would allow anyone to stand for election and gain access , for instance , to free leafleting , without any proper safeguards or deterrent . This could lead to a proliferation of candidates causing administrative complexity and frivolous candidatures . Instead it proposed to simplify the system of deposits ( keeping the deposit for parliamentary elections at GBP CARDINAL ) and to reduce the refund threshold to PERCENT of votes cast . In DATE a bill to this effect was put before ORG ( SN / SG/CARDINAL ) .

The relevant part of LAW provides :

“ Principle I.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Submission of candidatures

vi . If a deposit is required , it must be refundable should the candidate or party exceed a certain score ; the sum and the score requested should not be excessive . ”

ORG has offered expert evaluations of the electoral laws of many ORG member GPE . The issue of electoral deposits was CARDINAL of the ORG ’s concerns when assessing the draft amendments to LAW . The draft joint opinion of ORG and ORG in LOC ( the OSCE / ODIHR ) stated :

“ CARDINAL . The draft amendments eliminate the requirement of collecting signatures supporting a candidate ’s nomination and raise the amounts of electoral deposits . This is acceptable in principle . However , the draft ( amendments to Articles CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , PERSON ) and PERSON ) ) , would raise the electoral deposits significantly ( in case of presidential elections , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL [ times the minimum salary ] ; in case of proportional elections , from CARDINAL and in case of majority elections from CARDINAL times the minimum salary ) . It is recommended that these increased deposit amounts be reconsidered , as it is not apparent that the existing deposit amounts are insufficient to deter frivolous candidates . An unreasonably high electoral deposit also presents a problem under international and NORP standards . It is an established principle that wrongful discrimination includes discrimination against a person on the basis of social or property status . Thus , the amount of an electoral deposit must be considered carefully to ensure that it does not prevent the candidacy of a serious candidate who happens to be economically disadvantaged . ”

NORP However , as the NORP authorities followed the ORG ’s recommendations , electoral deposits ceased to be a matter of concern for international experts . The Final Opinion on the Amendments to LAW contained the following passage :

“ CARDINAL . The amendments eliminate the requirement of collecting signatures supporting a candidate ’s nomination . This is acceptable in principle . Contrary to the various previous drafts , the deposits are not raised in the amended Code ( Articles CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and PERSON ) ) , and remain the same as in previous elections , e.g. in case of presidential elections , at CARDINAL ; in case of proportional elections , at CARDINAL ; and in case of majority elections at CARDINAL times the minimum salary . This corresponds to the previous ORG and ORG recommendations . Absent evidence of high numbers of potential frivolous candidates , such deposits seem reasonable . ”

In General Comment no . CARDINAL ) , adopted by ORG under LAW of LAW , dated DATE , ORG referred briefly to the issue of election fees or deposits in the following terms :

“ CARDINAL . ... Conditions relating to nomination dates , fees or deposits should be reasonable and not discriminatory . ”

In its Concluding Observations on the report of GPE , the ORG commented on the broader ( but related ) issue of the substantial financial investment required of election candidates in GPE :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG welcomes the significant efforts made in ensuring to everyone the right to vote but is concerned at the considerable financial costs that adversely affect the right of persons to be candidates at elections . ”