Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Liberty of person;Security of person);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in Şırnak . They are close relatives of PERSON and GPE , respectively the President and Secretary of the Silopi branch of ORG ( PERSON ( HADEP ) ) .

The applicants alleged that PERSON and PERSON received death threats from the Silopi gendarmerie command and the PERSON gendarmerie regimental headquarters on account of their political activities .

At TIME on DATE , CARDINAL people in a blue ORG purporting to be police officers attempted to force PERSON to get into the car . Having informed them that he would go to the central gendarmerie station only if he received an official summons , he made his way to ORG 's offices . On receiving a call on his mobile phone from the gendarmerie commanding officer , he went to the station accompanied by PERSON . CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON , ORG , saw them enter the station .

TIME , unable to reach the men on their mobile phones , their families and lawyers asked the Silopi public prosecutor and the Silopi gendarmerie command for information . The commanding officer , PERSON Can , told them on the telephone that neither man had attended the station or been taken into custody .

On DATE , after the incident was reported in the press , the Şırnak provincial governor issued a written statement indicating that the CARDINAL men had gone to the Silopi gendarmerie station on DATE , stayed for TIME , and then left the LOC .

The applicants said that they had received no news of PERSON or GPE since DATE . Neither man had shown any sign of life .

The Government said that , on CARDINAL and DATE respectively , PERSON and his father , PERSON , attended the Silopi gendarmerie station to speak to the commanding officer . They signed the visitors ' register , which indicated the times of their arrival and departure .

At TIME on DATE , PERSON and GPE went to the station to see the commanding officer . As he was not there , they spoke to another officer and left the building at TIME They signed the visitors ' register on entering and leaving the building .

After criminal complaints were lodged by the CARDINAL men 's families , the NORP public prosecutor launched an investigation and took statements from the applicants . The relevant authorities were notified that they were missing and their photographs and descriptions were circulated to the public prosecutor 's offices and police headquarters in the province .

On DATE , at the request of the prosecutor leading the investigation , the district court made an order under LAW restricting access to the preliminary investigation file .

On DATE the authorities seized a letter discovered when searching a vehicle that had crossed the border from northern GPE which indicated that PERSON and GPE were in a ORG ( ORG of Kurdistan ) camp in ORG ) . The driver and owner of the vehicle and PERSON father were taken into custody , but released after making statements .

Three delegates from the ORG took the following depositions in GPE DATE . The depositions of ORG , PERSON and PERSON were obtained through an interpreter .

Şuayip ORG said that he was an applicant and PERSON father . He was living in LANGUAGE at the material time , and ran a petrol station in PERSON ( Silopi ) . He last saw his son , who lived in Silopi , on DATE .

NORP Before commencing his military service , that is to say prior to DATE , his son had worked as a driver transporting fuel from GPE . PERSON was the only child providing for the family , as the other children had not completed their studies . The witness said that he had heard that after returning from military service PERSON and a group of friends had taken steps to open a local branch of HADEP in Silopi .

In DATE the witness and his brother were arrested by gendarmes on their way to work . His brother was released , but the witness was taken to NORP district gendarmerie station . On DATE the gendarmes searched his home in his presence and made him sign a record . He was then taken to PERSON gendarmerie headquarters , where he was held for DATE . He was made to wear a blindfold during questioning , so could not identify his interrogator . His interrogator told him : “ Give up your HADEP activities . If you do n't , it will cost you your life . ” The witness was tried with CARDINAL co - defendants and spent DATE in prison . The person who made the accusations against them subsequently sent a letter to the authorities informing them that he had been acting under duress and did not even know the defendants .

The witness then gave details of a meeting he had had with the commanding officer , PERSON , at the Şırnak regimental headquarters . The commanding officer had threatened him , saying : “ Give up the idea of opening a local branch of HADEP in Silopi . I do n't want to hear what you have to say , this is my area . If you do n't give it up , I will not let you live . ”

The witness said that he had also been summoned by PERSON Can , the commanding officer of the NORP district gendarmerie , in DATE , DATE before his son went missing . PERSON Can had said to him “ Tell PERSON to give up this business ” and had telephoned PERSON , who asked to speak to the witness and said : “ Why did n't PERSON come and see me ? You tell him that if he does n't come DATE , I 'll kill him if he ever sets foot in the Şırnak area again . Tell him that . He knows my position and rank . ”

The witness and his son PERSON went back to see PERSON Can , who repeated his earlier warning : “ Tell him to give up that business . All his colleagues have resigned . He 's the only one who 's stayed on . If he does n't resign , he 'll come to grief . ” Before leaving the LOC , they asked PERSON Can to convince PERSON himself or to put pressure on him .

On being asked by the witness why he had not gone to see the Şırnak commanding officer , PERSON replied that he had spoken to him on the telephone and added that after the party 's inauguration he had received a call from PERSON Can and had told him : “ Commanding Officer , if I give it up , someone else will replace me . I was born in the area and know the situation better and am not carrying out any illegal activity ; I will not leave the party . ”

The witness 's nephew PERSON told him that on DATE an attempt had been made to force PERSON into a vehicle outside the post office . He had told the occupants that he would only do as they said if he received a call from the “ official ” authorities .

The witness said that his son and PERSON went to the gendarmerie station after receiving a telephone call from that source . The QUANTITY men got on well and worked together for ORG . PERSON had also received threats because of his political activities and , like PERSON , had been forced into hiding before the branch opened . Owing to the intimidation , he had been unable to continue working . The witness added that the entire family had suffered as a result of PERSON political activities .

He said that on TIME he was informed by his nephew PERSON that PERSON and ORG had not returned from the station . For DATE the authorities denied that they had been there . On DATE the commanding officer said that , as he had been out on a tour of inspection , the CARDINAL men had been seen by a non - commissioned officer , PERSON , and had left TIME . The witness lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor on CARDINAL or DATE . Subsequently he and PERSON went to see the commanding officer PERSON Can , who repeated that they had been on the premises for TIME , but had then left . He told them : “ We handed them over to the GPE [ PERSON Terörle Mücadele – Gendarmerie Anti - Terrorist Intelligence Branch ] ... the PERSON does not take orders from the regimental commanding officer . ”

The witness affirmed that he had been held in custody at ORG because of a letter addressed to him that had allegedly been seized in a vehicle that had entered GPE from GPE . The police told him that the letter said that his son was in the ORG camps . The witness considered that incident to be part of a “ plot ” against them .

Eyüp Tanış said that he was born in DATE and was living in Silopi at the material time . He was a cousin of PERSON and a former administrator of the local branch of HADEP .

He too stated that threats had been made against PERSON by the regimental commanding officer of the gendarmerie because of his attempts to open a local branch of HADEP in Silopi . PERSON had been subjected to intimidation and followed by plain - clothes police officers . He had been forced to leave Silopi and had spent DATE in ORG . The witness said that he too had been followed on a number of occasions . CARDINAL of the HADEP party administrators had received threats and CARDINAL had resigned as a result .

On TIME , the witness and PERSON went to the HADEP offices , where the other party members were also present . Towards TIME he went with PERSON to the post office . A car with CARDINAL people inside pulled up in front of them . The driver and CARDINAL of the passengers opened a rear door and asked them to get in . PERSON refused , saying : “ We do n't know you and if there 's anything to be discussed , then we 'll talk in an official institution , at the Silopi gendarmerie station or ORG if you like – in an official place like that . ” Unable to persuade the witness and PERSON to accompany them , the CARDINAL people , who said they were police officers , left the scene . The witness and PERSON then returned to ORG 's offices . The witness left for a short period during which it appears that PERSON received a telephone call from the commanding officer of the gendarmerie and went to the station with PERSON . After waiting for TIME , the witness made several unsuccessful attempts to reach PERSON on his mobile phone . According to the witness , the driver of the minibus who took them to the station saw them enter the building .

The witness said that he made a statement before the Silopi public prosecutor . He also answered questions by an investigating officer and provided a description enabling an identikit picture to be prepared of the CARDINAL people who attempted to force PERSON and GPE into the car . He subsequently attended the public prosecutor 's office CARDINAL times to examine photographs . At CARDINAL of the sessions he indicated that he recognised the driver of the car in CARDINAL of the photographs and found a strong likeness in another . In that connection , the witness confirmed the content of the identification record that was drawn up on DATE .

The threats prompted by their political activities in ORG continued after DATE and on CARDINAL occasion the police searched the party 's offices .

NORP The witness added that before starting his military service PERSON was in the business of transporting fuel from GPE and did not engage in any political activity . He repeated that on DATE PERSON went to the NORP gendarmerie station with PERSON after receiving a telephone call from the commanding officer . The QUANTITY men had been subjected to intimidation by the authorities when transporting fuel in their vehicles . They had threatened to withdraw PERSON operator 's licence and certificate . All the intimidation was linked to their political activities .

The witness said that following PERSON disappearance he became the acting President pending the next HADEP congress . In DATE he was taken into custody at Silopi gendarmerie station . Around TIME a military vehicle drew up outside his house . He was taken to the Silopi gendarmerie station . He was blindfolded and told : “ You must resign from HADEP ! ” He refused and was tortured and threats were made to kill him like PERSON and GPE . He was brought before a judge and accused of having ORG documents at his home . He lodged a criminal complaint against the officers who were on duty when he was in custody .

PERSON said he was an applicant and CARDINAL of PERSON brothers . He was born in DATE and was studying in GPE at the material time . He returned to Silopi on DATE following his brother 's disappearance .

He saw his brother when their father was taken into custody by the gendarmerie . His father telephoned him to say that he was with an officer and asked him to contact PERSON to persuade him to resign from HADEP .

PERSON also confirmed that the family had been subjected to intimidation by the authorities on account of his brother 's political activities . PERSON could not remain in Silopi . He feared that he would be arrested and had been threatened by PERSON and PERSON Can , the commanding officers of the gendarmeries of PERSON and PERSON respectively . PERSON was in the same position . PERSON had sent a complaint to the authorities about the threats that had been made against him and had asked for protection . The witness said that he had seen the complaint in question .

The witness said that despite various attempts he was unable to gain any information from the authorities about his brother . He had even been taken to the police station twice , where he was instructed not to write any further letters to the authorities . A person called PERSON had threatened to kill him like his brother .

PERSON said that he was an applicant and PERSON brother . He was assisted by an interpreter when giving evidence . He was born in DATE and lived in Silopi .

He confirmed that before they went missing his brother and PERSON had been forced to go to ORG by the threats and intimidation to which they had been subjected on account of their activities as members of ORG . Their wives , who lived in Silopi , feared reprisals by the authorities and moved frequently .

The witness said that DATE before his disappearance his brother had been arrested at the ORG checkpoint at the border with northern GPE , and his operator 's licence had been seized . The intimidation against his brother had begun when he joined HADEP .

The witness described a meeting he had had with Captain PERSON Can . He and PERSON had gone to the gendarmerie station to make enquiries about PERSON and GPE . He had said to the captain : “ You have handed them over to the GPE ” , to which the captain had replied that the GPE was not under his orders or the orders of the Şırnak regimental commanding officer .

The witness said that he had made CARDINAL statements to the NORP public prosecutor without the assistance of an interpreter . His statements had been recorded by the public prosecutor , who had noted that he was illiterate and did not understand NORP .

The CARDINAL witnesses were born in DATE , DATE and DATE . PERSON is the wife and ORG the partner of PERSON . PERSON is PERSON wife .

They confirmed that the authorities had threatened and intimidated both men on account of their activities as members of ORG . They said that they had been afraid to remain in Silopi and had been forced to leave their home for a time .

PERSON was born in DATE and was living in Silopi at the material time .

He said that he was present at ORG 's offices when PERSON received a telephone call from the gendarmerie station . Although it was PERSON who received the summons to go to the station , PERSON insisted on accompanying him .

The witness said that he had driven the CARDINAL men to the station and dropped them off QUANTITY from the main entrance .

The CARDINAL witnesses were born in DATE and DATE respectively and lived in Silopi at the material time .

They said that they saw PERSON and GPE as they were about to enter the gendarmerie headquarters by the main entrance . The CARDINAL men waved at them .

Ebcet PERSON was born in DATE and was living in LANGUAGE at the material time . He was a lorry driver and travelled from time to time to GPE with PERSON and GPE . He knew PERSON well , as they were from the same village .

He said that PERSON had told him in telephone conversations that he had been subjected to intimidation and threats because of his political activities , and that he had had to leave Silopi for DATE and had attended to the administrative formalities required to open a branch of HADEP in LOC .

The witness gave this account of a visit he and ORG had made to the commanding officer of the Silopi gendarmerie PERSON Can :

“ DATE before PERSON disappearance , I drove PERSON to the NORP district command . He had been summoned by PERSON Can , who met us and told PERSON that he wanted to speak to PERSON to get him to give up his activities as a member of HADEP . PERSON Can said that PERSON , the commanding officer of ORG , had asked to speak to PERSON . He reached PERSON on the telephone in ORG where he was on a tour of inspection . After speaking for TIME outside his office , PERSON Can passed the telephone to PERSON . As it was a cordless phone , I was able to hear the conversation . The commanding officer said to him : ' Tell PERSON to come and see me tomorrow , otherwise he had better not ever set foot in PERSON again , or I 'll kill him . ' ”

The witness added that after leaving the station ORG telephoned PERSON to ask him to go and see the commanding officer . After that incident , he encountered PERSON in ORG 's offices in ORG and told him that he had seen PERSON Can .

The witness said that ORG had been arrested prior to DATE , probably as a result of his son 's political activities .

Sezgin GPE said that he was born in DATE and was living in GPE at the material time . He was a lawyer and a representative of ORG in ORG .

He did not know PERSON or PERSON personally . However , he had been informed of the threats that had been made against them on account of their activities as members of ORG . He learnt of their disappearance on DATE .

The witness said that on DATE he , the President of ORG in GPE , PERSON , and CARDINAL other people went to see the NORP public prosecutor , PERSON . Mr Taştan told them that he had spoken on the telephone with the commanding officer of the Silopi gendarmerie , who had affirmed that PERSON and ORG had not been taken into custody or been to the station . The delegation from ORG asked the public prosecutor why he had not gone to the station himself . The public prosecutor replied that he considered the answer he had received from the commanding officer on the telephone sufficient and urged them to pursue their enquiries in Şırnak .

The witness said that he and PERSON had failed to get an audience with either the commanding officer of the Silopi gendarmerie or the district governor . The delegation went the same day to see the PERSON public prosecutor . He had been informed of the incident and was waiting for written information from the NORP public prosecutor 's office . He said that he would then enquire of the commanding officer of the PERSON gendarmerie regiment whether the CARDINAL men had been taken into custody . He told the delegation that he had no power to take any other action .

On DATE the witness drafted a report with other lawyers entitled “ The Silopi Disappearance Report ” , which brought the matter to the attention of the public . As a result , the disappearance of PERSON and GPE was widely reported in the media . DATE after the media became involved , the PERSON provisional governor issued a statement to say that the CARDINAL men had attended the gendarmerie station but had left a short time later .

The witness said that on DATE he and PERSON made a public statement asking the authorities to explain why they had denied the truth and to reply to various questions . As a result of their statement , they were prosecuted and tried before being acquitted of the charges .

DATE . PERSON was born in DATE . He lived in ORG and was the President of ORG at the material time . He is now the mayor of ORG .

On DATE the association was informed by PERSON that PERSON and GPE were missing . It tried to contact the authorities but was unable to obtain any information .

The witness said that he went to Silopi on DATE with Sezgin GPE and CARDINAL other people . He described the meetings with the public prosecutors and confirmed what Sezgin GPE had said in his statement . He said that he had formed the view that the NORP public prosecutor appeared to be bound by the gendarmerie 's denials and had told them that he had not questioned any of the gendarmes concerned or gone to the scene to make enquiries .

PERSON was born in DATE and was living in Şırnak at the material time . In DATE he was the President of the local branch of HADEP in Şırnak . He knew PERSON and GPE from their activities in the party .

He confirmed that members and leaders of HADEP were subjected to threats and intimidation . He himself had been taken into custody after the application was made to open a party office in Silopi .

In DATE , when he and others were in the process of trying to open a local branch of HADEP in Şırnak , they too had been subjected to intimidation and threats by the authorities . CARDINAL members of the party in Silopi had been forced to resign as a result of the intimidation . The party had only been able to assemble CARDINAL members instead of CARDINAL . PERSON had informed him of the pressure being exerted on him and in DATE had handed over a letter in his presence to the President of the ORG office of HADEP giving details of the threats and intimidation to which he and members of the party in Silopi had been subjected by the commanding officer of ORG .

The witness asserted that at DATE he was arrested by gendarmes on the road from Şırnak to ORG and summoned to the Şırnak regimental headquarters . The commanding officer threatened him and expressed his displeasure at the opening of local party branches in Silopi and Cizre . He asked him not to open the offices , saying : “ If you do not give it up , I will strangle you at ORG . Go and complain to whoever you want . You 'll be in big trouble . ”

The witness said that PERSON had received a number of telephone calls in his presence from the commanding officers of the Silopi and Şırnak gendarmeries , and had informed him of the threats and pressure to which he had been subjected in an effort to persuade him to resign .

DATE . He said that he had informed the Şırnak public prosecutor of the threats and intimidation to which they had been subjected as a result of their political activities in ORG and lodged a complaint .

PERSON was born in DATE and was the President of the ORG office of HADEP at the material time .

He said that he had known PERSON and GPE since DATE and that they often came to ORG . He personally oversaw their attempts to secure permission from the authorities to open a local party branch in Silopi and witnessed the enormous difficulties they encountered .

PERSON informed him of all the threats and intimidation to which he and his entourage had been subjected . The witness overheard a telephone conversation in which PERSON father PERSON , who was in custody at the time , called his son to ask him to see the commanding officer of the PERSON gendarmerie regiment immediately .

The witness said that PERSON had been anxious and concerned about the threats and arranged for his lawyer to draft CARDINAL or CARDINAL copies of a petition to the public prosecutor and other authorities , informing them of the intimidation and pressure to which he and his entourage were being subjected by the commanding officer of the Şırnak gendarmerie regiment . On DATE PERSON gave him the petitions . However , fearing reprisals , he kept them until DATE , when he handed them over to the lawyers dealing with the case .

Mahmut PERSON was born in DATE . He was a sergeant at Silopi gendarmerie district command and a traffic team commander at the material time .

He said that CARDINAL people worked at the station . He described the LOC and said that in addition to the main entrance there was a separate entrance for officers on the left - hand side of the building .

From DATE until TIME on DATE he was the duty officer and assisted non - commissioned officer PERSON . His duties were to monitor and record incidents and to supervise the activities of the soldiers . PERSON was responsible for recording the names of visitors at the main entrance .

Mr PERSON said that visitors were required to leave proof of identity and to sign the register . They were given a badge to enter the building .

He said that no incidents had been recorded on DATE . He did not know PERSON or PERSON and learnt of their disappearance from the press and from discussions within the gendarmerie .

PERSON was born in DATE and was a non - commissioned officer at LOC gendarmerie command at the material time . He had administrative duties relating to personnel .

He said that he did not know PERSON or GPE . He had heard of them and was informed of the incident after receiving a summons from the NORP public prosecutor .

The witness said that in DATE they carried out a tour of inspection . He could not remember whether the commanding officer of ORG had taken part . He confirmed that people entering or leaving the station were required to sign a register .

PERSON was born in DATE . He was performing his military service at LOC gendarmerie command at the material time . He was on guard duty inside the building .

He did not know PERSON or GPE . He had heard of them through the public prosecutor .

The witness said that he could not recall the following statement he made on DATE :

“ The witness was shown photographs of PERSON and GPE . He said , ' The persons you have shown me did not enter the station while I was on duty ... on DATE . As a great many civilians enter or leave the station , it is not easy to keep track of them ' . ”

PERSON was born in DATE . He was performing his military service at LOC gendarmerie command at the material time . He was on guard duty at the main entrance to the station .

He said that the visitors ' registers were kept by PERSON .

He did not know PERSON or GPE . He had made a statement to the public prosecutor , who showed him photographs of the men and asked him if he knew them and whether he had seen them previously at the station . That is how he learnt that they were missing .

PERSON was born in DATE . He was a non - commissioned officer engaged in operations intelligence at LOC gendarmerie command at the material time .

He said that his job was to gather intelligence for use in maintaining public order and preventing crime . He was the leader of a CARDINAL - man team . He and his colleague reported to the commanding officer , PERSON Can . The usual source of their information was individuals .

The witness knew PERSON and GPE . PERSON contacted him by telephone at DATE to ask him for help as his father had been taken into custody for providing assistance and support to a terrorist organisation . PERSON offered to provide information in exchange . The witness first met PERSON in DATE in the commanding officer 's office . Their discussion lasted TIME , but the witness could not remember what it was about . They did not speak about PERSON HADEP activities and he was not subjected to pressure or intimidation .

The witness said that PERSON provided him with information . He got in touch when he had information to pass on and in some ways acted as an agent for the witness and Captain PERSON Can . The witness said that the first time he saw PERSON was on DATE .

On DATE he saw both PERSON and GPE in the waiting - room on the second floor of the gendarmerie station . They had come to see PERSON Can about PERSON being disqualified from driving . The witness did not summon them to the building . As the commanding officer was not there , they left the waiting - room , PERSON first . The witness spoke with PERSON for TIME and he handed him documents wrapped in a newspaper he had taken out of the inside pocket of his jacket . CARDINAL of the documents concerned HADEP , the other , contraband . The witness parted company with the CARDINAL men in the building and saw them leave by the main entrance . However , he lost sight of them once they were in the street .

The witness did not recall when or how he was informed of their disappearance . He was questioned by the public prosecutor about it . He could not really remember whether he had handed the documents over to the public prosecutor .

He said that he gathered information about HADEP and other political parties as part of his job and that gendarmerie officers working in intelligence used unmarked vehicles when necessary . PERSON worked for the intelligence service at the regimental headquarters of the PERSON gendarmerie . The witness did not know whether PERSON and other gendarmes came to Silopi in civilian dress on DATE . He contacted him after the men 's disappearance in order to work with him on the investigation .

Veysel Ateş was born in DATE . He was performing his military service and had the rank of sergeant at Silopi district gendarmerie command at the material time . He was responsible for keeping the visitors ' registers and carrying out the checks necessary for that purpose .

He said that once the checks had been carried out visitors were allowed to go to the relevant office unaccompanied .

He knew PERSON , who had already been to the gendarmerie station in the past . The witness was on duty on DATE . PERSON arrived with PERSON . They appeared relatively calm and he spoke with them briefly . They told him that they had come to see the commanding officer PERSON Can . He informed them that he had gone out . PERSON asked when he would be back . The witness replied that the commanding officer did not give them any information about his schedule . PERSON decided to wait for him in the waiting - room . He entered their names in the register and the CARDINAL men signed the book using his pen . The witness gave the following account of what ensued : “ After TIME PERSON and GPE returned to reception . I gave PERSON his mobile phone , they signed the register and left the LOC . They did not say whether they had seen anyone else and did not ask to see PERSON . ”

As regards the visitors ' register , the witness explained that when his turn of duty came to an end he would show the register to the officer relieving him , who would check it and sign at the foot of the last page . The witness was unable to explain why there was no signature in the register for DATE , whereas the corresponding page for DATE did have CARDINAL .

The visitors ' register showed that PERSON had been to the station on DATE .

The witness said that he clearly recalled that he had not seen any vehicle pass through the entrance to the building on that date , other than military vehicles .

Yücel Erteki was born in DATE . He was performing his military service as a sentry at LOC gendarmerie command .

He said that he had not been informed of the disappearance of PERSON and GPE . From his post , he could not see people entering or leaving the building . He could not recall being summoned by the public prosecutor . However , he acknowledged that the signature on a statement taken by the public prosecutor was his .

PERSON was born in DATE . He was a non - commissioned officer serving in the operations unit of the PERSON gendarmerie at the material time .

He said that he had heard of PERSON and GPE following anonymous information received at the gendarmerie station in DATE . While he could not remember the precise content of the information , the gist was that CARDINAL people , who may have been PERSON and GPE , had been taken by lorry to ORG camps in northern GPE . The gendarmerie passed the information on to the anti - terrorist branch of ORG and drew up a report . He played no further part in the case .

The witnesses were born in DATE respectively . They were police officers at ORG and responsible for immigration control at the border with northern GPE .

They were informed that PERSON and GPE were missing and were asked whether the CARDINAL men had left or entered GPE through the ORG checkpoint .

Acting on information from an anonymous informant , the witnesses stopped a lorry that had entered GPE from GPE and , during a search that took TIME , seized a letter and a small bottle filled with green powder . They were somewhat surprised as the information related to a possible haul of leaflets issued by an illegal organisation . The driver was present during the search and denied any implication in the incident . They informed the NORP public prosecutor , who came out to the checkpoint . The letter was intended for ORG and said that PERSON and GPE were in ORG camps in northern GPE .

PERSON Can was born in DATE and was the commanding officer of the LOC gendarmerie at the material time .

He said that his superior was Colonel PERSON , the commanding officer of the PERSON gendarmerie regiment . He would converse with him several times a day .

He described the location of his office . Visitors waited in the waiting - room opposite his office and he saw them when he had time .

He had not known PERSON and GPE before DATE . He knew the former through his political activities as a member of HADEP . PERSON was in contact with non - commissioned officer PERSON and provided important information on the trafficking of arms , fuel , drugs and illegal products .

The witness met PERSON for the first time in DATE . As the witness had only just been appointed to the post , ORG paid him a courtesy visit . He was accompanied by another person . PERSON mentioned that his son , PERSON , had just become President of the local branch of HADEP in Silopi and would shortly be paying him a visit . The witness asked PERSON to congratulate his son on his behalf .

The witness said that in principle the establishment of a local party office or a change in its membership would be of no interest to him . However , certain information and material in his possession had raised concerns about possible links between ORG and the terrorist organisation ORG ( ORG ) . He did not at any stage ask PERSON and PERSON to give up their activities as members of ORG .

He met PERSON again on DATE . He came to pay him a visit with his brother PERSON and CARDINAL other people . This too was a courtesy visit . On DATE PERSON himself came to visit him . The witness had already spoken with him on the telephone but this was the first time he had seen him . PERSON informed him of his new position at the local branch of HADEP and confirmed that he continued to see non - commissioned officer PERSON . PERSON told the witness : “ Do not have any suspicions about me , I wish to collaborate closely with the ORG , with all the agents of the ORG , the gendarmerie , the police and the district governor . ” He added that party leaders and other people had been putting pressure on him . He had left Silopi for a time and had travelled to Van , Cizre and Diyarbakır to attend to personal matters and ORG 's affairs . The witness said that their meeting took place in a very friendly atmosphere and he even called in LOC . This was the first time PERSON had met PERSON , as they had previously only spoken on the telephone . PERSON had contacted PERSON for help when his father was in custody and offered to provide information in exchange . The witness said that he had never met PERSON ; however , he had seen his name mentioned in an official document as someone engaged in the transport of fuel from northern GPE .

On TIME , the witness played host to a team of CARDINAL inspectors whom he accompanied on a tour of inspection of the PERSON and ORG gendarmerie posts ( having left the station at TIME ) . He did not return to the station until TIME or TIME and did not speak to PERSON that day . He saw him at TIME the following day . The witness said that he was replaced by the duty officer during his absence . None of his superiors or other officers from the Şırnak regimental headquarters visited the LOC command on DATE .

NORP The witness said that on his return to the station in Silopi he received a telephone call from the NORP public prosecutor , PERSON , enquiring whether CARDINAL people , who were members of ORG , had been taken into custody at Silopi district gendarmerie command . He said that they had not , but that he would make enquiries at other gendarmerie posts . The public prosecutor rang back at TIME and the witness informed him that his enquiries indicated that neither PERSON nor GPE had been taken into custody at any stage .

It was not until DATE that PERSON Can learnt that PERSON and PERSON had come to see him . PERSON told him that he had spoken with the QUANTITY men , who said that PERSON was having problems with his fuel transport business and needed his help . Before leaving the building PERSON handed some documents on HADEP to LOC . The witness refused to divulge the content of those documents .

It was the witness 's understanding that the public prosecutor was fully empowered to inspect the gendarmerie station ( or to carry out an investigation ) . When visiting the station , the public prosecutor would inspect the registers and cells and thus perform routine checks .

With regard to ORG 's activities , the witness said that they were relatively concerned about the party 's links with ORG . He added :

“ ORG is a terrorist organisation and has a great deal of influence over HADEP . I informed PERSON about this and asked him to keep me informed of any developments . He assured me that PERSON and I would be informed without delay and that he would not be doing anything illegal . Prior to DATE I had not spoken about PERSON and PERSON to my superior , PERSON . He had not asked me any questions about them . Following their disappearance , the public prosecutor and ORG investigators made enquiries . All the enquiries focused on the NORP district gendarmerie command . We also made enquiries : we questioned a number of people , CARDINAL soldiers , worked in close cooperation with the police and circulated posters bearing their photographs . However , when the letter was seized by police at FAC , we directed our investigations to northern GPE .

I repeat that no pressure was exerted by command as a result of ORG 's activities . The resignations of some of ORG 's members was an internal party affair . The allegations of threats and intimidation made by PERSON are without foundation . He came to pay me a courtesy visit and brought me a gift , which I declined . No one ordered PERSON and PERSON to come to the station . I did not witness a call by PERSON to ORG on DATE ; he did not say that unless PERSON came to see him he would never be able to set foot in PERSON again and he would kill him . I repeat that neither PERSON nor GPE were at any stage taken into custody . On DATE they came to the station and then left . ”

The witness said that after returning from his tour of inspection at TIME on DATE he was contacted by Mr PERSON and the public prosecutor PERSON . He told them that neither of the missing men was in custody and gave the same reply to the district governor DATE . In response to the district governor 's comments , he checked the register of visitors ' arrivals and was informed of PERSON and PERSON visit . On DATE the public prosecutor summoned the gendarmes and requested the registers .

As to the allegation that the visitors ' register was not signed by the duty officer on DATE , the witness explained that there was no rule on the subject and that it was left to the duty officer 's discretion . The important point was to note comings and goings .

The witness did not know the officers on the interrogation and intelligence team at the Şırnak regimental headquarters . He was unable to comment on the document the NORP public prosecutor had sent to the PERSON public prosecutor asking to be allowed to interview the officer who had telephoned PERSON ( on his mobile phone ) at TIME on DATE and indicating that the persons who had attempted to force him into their car at TIME had been identified .

The witness said that he was questioned by the public prosecutor in DATE , by which time he had been transferred to the ORG district . The public prosecutor had not summoned him earlier . He said that certain teams from the Şırnak regimental headquarters ( dealing with intelligence ) wore plain clothes and used unmarked cars .

NORP The witness denied telling PERSON that the GPE was not under his orders or the orders of the commanding officer of the PERSON gendarmerie regiment . He said that he knew nothing about the GPE and had never heard of the existence of such a unit within the gendarmerie .

Kubilay Taştan was born in DATE and was CARDINAL of the Silopi public prosecutors at the material time . There were CARDINAL public prosecutors in Silopi at the time , PERSON , PERSON and the witness .

He did not know PERSON and GPE and had never met them . He was informed of the incident at TIME on DATE by Mr PERSON . He contacted the commanding officer of the Silopi gendarmerie on the telephone and asked his replacement to make enquiries of all the gendarmerie posts . PERSON Can called him back to say that neither of the missing men had been to the gendarmerie station or taken into custody .

After receiving that information he did not consider an on - site inspection necessary . The procedure was that the commanding officer of the gendarmerie had a duty to inform him whenever anyone was taken into custody and of the reasons for the arrest . He regarded everything he was told by the gendarmes as true . He gave the following account of the events :

“ We considered that PERSON and PERSON had not been taken into custody . The investigation proceeded orally . I found the information provided by the commanding officer to be satisfactory . On DATE I contacted the Şırnak , PERSON and ORG public prosecutors ' offices by telephone and asked whether the missing men had been detained within their sectors . They said they had not . DATE Mr ORG arrived with the father of CARDINAL of the missing men . We took a statement from him , they lodged their complaint and the investigation began DATE . On CARDINAL and DATE I took a statement from someone who said that he saw PERSON and GPE enter the district gendarmerie command and gave instructions to the commanding officer to send full lists of the names of the soldiers and officers who were on the premises on DATE . I also questioned CARDINAL or CARDINAL soldiers who were on duty that day . I repeat that it would not have been possible to conceal any detention from me and that there would have been no point in my going to the station . On DATE , in accordance with our internal organisation procedure , I handed the investigation file over to my colleague PERSON , who took evidence from various gendarmes and members of the armed forces . On DATE a delegation from ORG came to see me and asked me questions about the investigation . I did not say that they should look for PERSON and GPE in PERSON . I always spoke to PERSON Can on the telephone and did not meet him in person . We did not receive any information about what had happened to the missing men . I saw the visitors ' register and the custody record on DATE and checked the signatures . ”

With regard to the investigation procedure , the witness said that , when investigating a case , the public prosecutor was in all cases entitled to enter the gendarmerie station , make enquiries on the LOC and carry out judicial checks , such as inspecting the cells or checking the lawfulness and conditions of detention .

He expressed no view on the allegation that a gendarme had called PERSON to ask him to come to the station . He said that he could not divulge the name of that person as the investigation was confidential .

PERSON was born in DATE and was a public prosecutor in Silopi at the material time .

He did not know PERSON or GPE . He was in charge of the investigation into the disappearance of the CARDINAL men for DATE before being transferred on DATE .

He gave the following account :

“ There were CARDINAL public prosecutors in Silopi . One of us was on duty DATE . I was given the file on the case by PERSON . He had taken some statements and requested the registers from the station . I questioned the gendarmes who were present at LOC gendarmerie command on DATE and carried out a proper investigation taking all possibilities into account . On a number of occasions I used PERSON , who was a key witness in this case . I sent him to ORG so that an identikit picture could be made of the people who had attempted to force PERSON into a car . I asked for the people who had telephoned him to be identified and photographs of all personnel at LOC gendarmerie command were shown to FAC . The public prosecutors ' offices in the region were informed that the CARDINAL men were missing . Copies of the visitors ' registers to the station were sent to ORG . I did not take a statement from PERSON Can as I was not given the authority to do so , as when a commanding officer was accused of an offence authorisation was needed from ORG . I questioned the other gendarmes as suspects .

Until DATE those concerned had access to the documents in the investigation file and a copy of the material in the file was given to PERSON . However , the information had been disseminated by the media , including the media controlled by the illegal organisation . Therefore , further to an application by me with a view to bringing the investigation to a successful conclusion , the judge made an order on DATE imposing restrictions on access to the file . It is true that the commanding officer of the Silopi gendarmerie had earlier sought an order making all the statements from the gendarmerie personnel confidential . ”

In response to a question regarding the identity of the person who had telephoned PERSON on DATE , the witness replied :

“ No call was made by the commanding officer of the Silopi gendarmerie . The list compiled by the telephone operators indicates the name of the person who rang PERSON . That name appears in the file . When we sent a copy of the investigation file to ORG , the names had not been deleted . Since the person concerned was not in Silopi , I had no jurisdiction to question him or her or to organise an identification procedure . I informed the competent public prosecutor 's office and it was its responsibility to take the necessary action . ”

He did not know PERSON or GPE and was not personally responsible for the investigation . However , the other CARDINAL public prosecutors worked with him .

The applicants alleged that PERSON and GPE had been threatened and intimidated by the commanding officer of the PERSON gendarmerie regiment on account of their activities as members of ORG . They stated that after being summoned by the commanding officer of the Silopi gendarmerie the missing men had gone to the station on DATE . There had been no news of them since .

On DATE the public prosecutor PERSON took evidence from ORG and ORG . The latter said that , following a telephone call from the commanding officer , he had taken PERSON and GPE by car to the Silopi gendarmerie .

The telephone records showed that PERSON had received a call on his mobile phone at TIME on DATE .

On DATE statements were taken from Eyüp and PERSON at ORG . ORG described the men who had attempted to force him and PERSON to get into their car . QUANTITY ORG said that Eyüp and PERSON had been intimidated in the past on account of their activities as members of ORG and that he was worried about their safety .

On DATE , further to an oral request from the NORP public prosecutor 's office , the commanding officer of the PERSON gendarmerie regiment sent CARDINAL notes to the Şırnak and Silopi public prosecutors ' offices and to the Şırnak provincial governor indicating that :

( a ) PERSON went to the NORP district gendarmerie command of his own accord on DATE , and during his meeting there he was not threatened on account of his political activities or forced to resign from his position as leader of the local branch of ORG ;

( b ) On DATE , PERSON and GPE went to the station of their own free will and left the building at TIME ;

( c ) During the visit , the commanding officer was out inspecting the ORG gendarmerie post ;

( d ) PERSON was a gendarmerie informant ;

( e ) On DATE PERSON handed over certain documents to a non - commissioned officer and sought the latter 's help with respect to the revocation of PERSON operator 's licence ;

( f ) The purpose of all the allegations that had been made was to tarnish the image of the security forces , to misinform the public and to put pressure on the courts following the arrest of HADEP leaders in PERSON on account of their links with the ORG . The persons concerned had issued official statements indicating that they had received death threats and those allegations had appeared in DATE edition of the ORG newspaper .

On DATE the public prosecutor PERSON took statements from CARDINAL witnesses who said that they had seen PERSON and GPE enter the gendarmerie station together , from the applicants PERSON and PERSON , and from CARDINAL gendarmes from Silopi station . The gendarme PERSON said that PERSON was wearing a suit and entered the building with GPE . The QUANTITY men left TIME after arriving . The gendarme PERSON stated that PERSON arrived at the station TIME before PERSON .

On DATE the public prosecutor PERSON took statements from CARDINAL gendarmes who said that the missing men had not been taken into custody in any of the gendarmerie posts and that they had no information about them .

As to the other statements taken by the Silopi public prosecutor 's office , the ORG notes that certain names and information have been deleted from the documents the Government produced on DATE . The ORG stated that , owing to a confidentiality order made by the competent court , they were unable to disclose the name or details of the person who had telephoned PERSON on DATE , whom the public prosecutor PERSON had identified , or to provide the unexpurgated investigation file containing the information that had been deleted from the file sent originally .

On DATE PERSON and his brother PERSON were questioned by the public prosecutor . PERSON stated that in DATE they were arrested on the Silopi road while on their way to Cizre by CARDINAL people in civilian dress who asked PERSON to go to the Şırnak regimental headquarters . ORG went to see the commanding officer PERSON , who told him that PERSON should resign from his position in HADEP .

On DATE the Silopi public prosecutor sent the case file to the public prosecutor at ORG .

On DATE the ORG sent the ORG a letter from General PERSON , stating that the investigation by the Silopi public prosecutor was still pending and that a simultaneous investigation by the ORG would interfere with due process and undermine the investigation . He said that he had submitted his written statement to the domestic court authorities and refused to appear as a witness before the ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG informed ORG outcome of the proceedings concerning the complaint lodged with the Şırnak public prosecutor by PERSON of intimidation against HADEP party members . They said that the investigation had begun on DATE . The public prosecutor had declared that he had no jurisdiction ratione materiae and had returned the case file to ORG . In an order dated DATE , ORG had concluded that there were no grounds for prosecuting the gendarmes against whom the accusations had been made .

NORP In a letter to the ORG dated DATE , the applicants ' representative said that the person who made the telephone call to PERSON had been identified by the NORP public prosecutor as the head of the intelligence and interrogation unit of the PERSON gendarmerie regiment , PERSON . He said that the file showed that Mr PERSON and CARDINAL gendarmes from the same unit had attempted to force PERSON to get into the car on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the Şırnak public prosecutor ruled that the commanding officer of the PERSON gendarmerie , PERSON , had no case to answer on the charge of making threats in order to secure compliance with an ultimatum .

On CARDINAL DATE PERSON asked the President of ORG to review that decision and again alleged that death threats had been made . His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that there was no evidence in the file to show that the accused had threatened ORG .

NORP On DATE the public prosecutor ruled that CARDINAL of the defendants , including QUANTITY gendarmes , had no case to answer . His findings were as follows :

“ The document ... dated DATE drafted by the NORP public prosecutor 's office on the kidnapping incident has been examined .

... the NORP public prosecutor 's office , on DATE , when referring the investigation file concerning the disappearance of the President and Secretary of the local branch of HADEP in Silopi , PERSON and GPE , ... asserted that the events in this case fell within the jurisdiction of ORG for the following reasons :

As regards defendants ORG . CARDINAL to CARDINAL and defendant no . DATE at QUANTITY on the date of the incident CARDINAL individuals claiming to be police officers pulled up in a vehicle in front of PERSON and ORG outside ORG and asked them to get in . PERSON and Eyüp Tanış refused , saying that they would go to the gendarmerie headquarters only if they received a call from the authorities . PERSON received a telephone call at TIME and was summoned to the Silopi district gendarmerie command . PERSON and GPE went to the gendarmerie headquarters and have not been heard of since .

DATE before the incident , the commanding officer of the Şırnak gendarmerie regiment had summoned PERSON father , PERSON , and threatened him telling him that his son should resign from his position as President of the local branch of HADEP as otherwise neither he nor his family would be allowed to live . The missing men were abducted by the security forces . Acts of serving security forces in the region contravened LAW of LAW and fell within the jurisdiction of ORG .

As regards defendant no . DATE according to information received on police telephone numbers CARDINAL and CARDINAL approximately DATE previously , the President of the ORG provincial office in GPE , PERSON , had sent PERSON and GPE in a state of unconsciousness from Silopi to northern GPE where they were to be handed over to the ORG in exchange for CARDINAL GPE ] dollars [ ORG ] . Such conduct contravened LAW of LAW and fell within the jurisdiction of ORG .

As regards defendants ORG . CARDINAL , DATE to DATE and DATE calls were made from their telephones after DATE to number CARDINAL DATE , which is PERSON telephone number . Such conduct contravened LAW and fell within the jurisdiction of ORG .

As regards defendant no . CARDINAL , PERSON – the defendant has made a statement to the press saying that he killed the CARDINAL missing men .

Having regard to the material in the investigation file and information obtained from the additional investigation by this office :

As regards defendants ORG . CARDINAL to CARDINAL and defendant no . DATE , who are serving members of the security forces in the region and local informants .

Firstly , an order was made to sever the investigation file concerning the allegations of death threats made by the commanding officer of the Şırnak gendarmerie regiment , the head of the security forces in the region , against ORG , the father of the missing PERSON , and to send it to the PERSON public prosecutor 's office for investigation . Following the investigation by the PERSON public prosecutor 's office ... , a decision was made on CARDINAL DATE that there was no case to answer as the only evidence was abstract allegations . Following an objection by ORG representative , PERSON , the President of ORG decided on DATE ... to reject it , for want of sufficient evidence to institute proceedings or try ... the commanding officer of the PERSON gendarmerie , and to uphold the decision that there was no case to answer .

Since that decision is final , the allegation that ' he [ PERSON ] was threatened with death DATE before the incident ' , which constitutes the basis for the allegations that the said persons were kidnapped and executed by the security forces , is still pending and has not been made out .

Further , as regards the allegation that PERSON and PERSON were summoned by the commanding officer of the LOC gendarmerie shortly before they went missing , that it has been impossible to obtain any news about them since and that they were kidnapped by the security forces :

Having regard to the information provided to the investigators by the commanding officer of the Silopi gendarmerie and the examination by the local public prosecutor 's office of the registers kept by the Silopi district gendarmerie command ;

It has been established from the signatures in the visitors ' register at the district gendarmerie command that the missing persons arrived at the Silopi district gendarmerie command at TIME on DATE they disappeared ; that the records state that they left at TIME ; that their signatures on their arrival and departure appear opposite their names ; that these signatures were sent to ORG for comparison with samples of their signatures obtained by the local public prosecutor 's office from various public records ; and that the department of ORG specialising in handwriting analysis ... concluded in its report of DATE ... that the signatures in the register opposite the names of the missing men ... were those of PERSON and GPE .

Further , according to the Silopi gendarmerie , PERSON was a local informant . He provided information and documents about past or future incidents in the region . On DATE of his disappearance he attended the gendarmerie headquarters for that reason . ... the visitors ' register shows that on CARDINAL and DATE his father , PERSON , and on DATE PERSON himself , went to the gendarmerie headquarters ; it was also noted that there was a fact sheet in the name of PERSON among the fact sheets giving details of the sources and means of obtaining information held by the central gendarmerie command at ORG where the names of local informants were listed .

In the light of these explanations , the investigation file does not contain sufficient information and evidence to establish that the missing persons have been kidnapped by the security forces .

As regards defendant no . DATE , PERSON – in view of the information received by the security forces at TIME on DATE from a person who did not disclose his or her identity and has not been identified ( ' I do not recall the date exactly , I negotiated with PERSON , a member of ORG , to take CARDINAL people to the north of GPE in exchange for USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . I smuggled them to the north of GPE via the Habur border checkpoint in a lorry . On the way , the road was blocked by armed individuals who took the QUANTITY men with them . They also took the USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . I asked PERSON for this money on my return , but he did not give it to me . ' ) , it was alleged that the defendant had sent the missing persons to the ORG in northern GPE in exchange for money .

In view of :

( a ) the denial of these accusations by the defendant ;

( b ) the failure to identify the informant ;

( c ) the informant 's failure to ask the authorities to take action ;

( d ) the lack of concrete evidence to support the allegation ;

the investigation file does not contain sufficient information and evidence to establish the truth of that allegation .

As regards defendants ORG . CARDINAL , DATE to DATE and DATE although the telecommunications records established that calls were made after the disappearance of the CARDINAL men to telephone number CARDINAL DATE , which is registered in the name of PERSON , that telephone is not used by PERSON , but by his uncle PERSON , who has used it since DATE and who received the calls that were made to it . In view of that fact , the investigation file does not contain sufficient information or evidence to establish that the defendants established contact with PERSON after the date of his disappearance .

As regards defendant no . CARDINAL , PERSON – it has been claimed that the defendant had stated in the press that he killed the missing men .

However , in view of :

( a ) the statements made by the defendant on DATE to the public prosecutor , in which he said that after seeing a group of HADEP party members set the NORP flag on fire and insult martyrs [ people who had been killed by ORG militants ] he had snatched back the flag and injured a person in the leg for insulting his brother , a martyr , that he had no connection with the missing persons and the article in DATE edition of the ORG newspaper was exaggerated , that he rejected the accusation and did not know the missing persons ;

( b ) the fact that it is impossible to find concrete evidence to support the newspaper article ;

the investigation file does not contain sufficient information and evidence as regards this allegation .

In the light of the above findings :

The defendant 's implication ... in the disappearance of the CARDINAL men has not been sufficiently established to enable criminal proceedings to be instituted under LAW of the Code of Criminal procedure .

Decides , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW :

That , in the light of the lack of evidence , no criminal proceedings should be brought against the defendants ;

That in view of the confidentiality order issued by ORG on DATE under the provisions of LAW and the restriction imposed on the rights of the parties or their representatives to examine the case file and to take copies of documents , owing to the fact that when the investigation was carried out by the local public prosecutor 's office statements were obtained from local informants in which their names and addresses were given , it is necessary to remove from the file and hold at the public prosecutor 's office at the ORG pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW the statements of the local informants , the information relating to their identity and a copy of the documents , without prejudice to the merits ;

To return the case file to the Silopi public prosecutor 's office , which has jurisdiction in the area in which the incident took place , in order to discover the real culprits ;

To serve a copy of the decision on the complainants , their representatives and the defendants ;

To serve a copy on ORG , on ORG at ORG , as the case is the subject of an application to ORG ; and

To serve a copy of the decision on the commanding officer of the Şırnak provincial gendarmerie , as the accused include gendarmerie officers . ”

The applicants appealed against the decision that there was no case to answer . Their appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The relevant passages from its decision read as follows :

“ Having considered the grounds of appeal and the investigation file :

NORP The decision that the defendants , who are public servants , have no case to answer concerns LAW of LAW [ which governs offences against political freedom ] . No such order has been made in the case concerning the disappearance . The decision contains an order to pursue the investigation into that incident .

A decision that there is no case to answer is not a final decision . The proceedings will resume if new evidence comes to light before the end of the limitation period . Proceedings may be brought de novo against an accused who has been found to have no case to answer or against other suspects ( LAW ) .

In the present case , the offence in respect of which the appeal has been made is within the jurisdiction of ORG . No additional investigation has been ordered under LAW since no defect liable to affect the merits has been found . However , it would appear advisable to take the following steps when gathering evidence in the course of the investigation :

( a ) To obtain a new statement from ORG regarding the point referred to in the document issued on DATE by the NORP public prosecutor 's office ; to organise a confrontation between the witness ORG and ORG , in accordance with the procedure , in order to clear up the uncertainty over identification ; to establish why PERSON called PERSON at TIME on DATE ;

( b ) To trace the record drawn up on DATE concerning the lorry with registration number CARDINAL DK CARDINAL and to obtain a statement from PERSON , whose name is mentioned in the record , in order to determine why PERSON went to the gendarmerie headquarters ;

( c ) In order to determine whether ORG and PERSON were threatened on DATE of the incident [ attempt made to force them to get into a vehicle ] , to identify the registration number of the vehicle concerned , and establish why the eyewitness ORG failed in broad daylight to note a single letter from the number plate which was very close to him when he had given a detailed description of the people who had tried to force them to get into the vehicle ;

( d ) To send the photograph of PERSON in the case file and the photograph allegedly portraying PERSON with a militant from the organisation to the relevant department at ORG to see whether the CARDINAL photographs are of the same person .

Having regard to the aforementioned considerations :

Decides , following its examination of the case file , dismissing the appeal and sitting as a court of last instance :

To dismiss the complainants ' objections to the public prosecutor at ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE that there was no case to answer concerning the offence under LAW of using threats or violence to prevent the exercise of political rights , as the decision complied with the rules of procedure and the law ;

To pursue the investigation , to send the case file to the NORP public prosecutor 's office to remedy the defects noted in the investigation and listed above ...

To remit the case file to the public prosecutor 's office at ORG . ”

The Criminal Code makes it an offence to :

( a ) arbitrarily deprive a person of his or her liberty ( DATE lays down the general rule , LAW to public servants ) ;

( b ) make threats ( LAW ) ;

( c ) subject a person to torture or ill - treatment ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ;

( d ) commit involuntary homicide ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , voluntary homicide ( Article CARDINAL ) or premeditated murder ( Article CARDINAL ) .

For all these offences , complaints may be lodged , pursuant to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , with the public prosecutor or the local administrative authorities . The public prosecutor and the police have a duty to investigate crimes reported to them , with the former deciding whether a prosecution should be initiated , pursuant to LAW . A complainant may appeal against a decision by the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings .

The public prosecutor had no jurisdiction to investigate alleged acts of terrorism , for which a separate system of national security prosecutors and courts operated throughout GPE ( at the material time ) .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides :

“ Counsel for the defence may examine all the material in the investigation file and the procedural file and take copies of any documents free of charge .

If it would be prejudicial to the preliminary investigation for this right to be exercised , a district court judge may , on an application by the public prosecutor , make an order restricting its exercise ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides :

“ Anyone who by threats or violence ... totally or partly prevents another from exercising his or her political rights shall be guilty of an offence ...

If the offender is a public servant who has abused his or her authority to commit the offence , the prison sentence shall be ... and the offender shall be disqualified from public service for DATE . ”


CASE OF KOLNOOCHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . On DATE the second applicant died . By letter of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON , the second applicant 's widow , informed the ORG that she wished to pursue the application .

The first applicant was employed by a subsidiary of the Statecontrolled “ Pivdenelekromash ” PERSON ( “ the Company , ” ВАТ “ Південелектромаш ” ) until her dismissal on redundancy in DATE . The other applicants were employed by the ORG itself .

DATE and DATE ( see appendix for details ) each applicant obtained CARDINAL or more final judgments from ORG ( Новокаховський міський суд PERSON області ) , awarding him or her salary arrears or other payments against his or her employer .

The writs of enforcement in respect of these judgments were transferred to ORG ( ORG виконавчої служби Новокаховського міського управління юстиції ) , which initiated the enforcement proceedings . On different occasions the bailiffs informed the applicants that the collection of the debts was impeded by pending bankruptcy proceedings against the Company .

In DATE the judgment given in favour of the first applicant and CARDINAL of the CARDINAL judgments given in favour of the second applicant were enforced in full . Other judgments remain fully or partially unenforced .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant , ORG , is a company registered in GPE as from DATE , which has its registered address in GPE . It was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant company acquired CARDINAL pieces of land measuring CARDINAL , CARDINAL and QUANTITY , respectively , and QUANTITY in total , at a price of MONEY ( ORG ) DATE ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , with the aim of developing the land for commercial purposes .

At the time of purchase , the land situated at the upper reaches of “ the valley ” was included within the “ limits to development ” within the meaning of LAW ( DATE ) issued by the relevant authority , namely ORG . The applicant alleged that the land within the development zone as delineated by LAW was at the time considered to have development potential , even though the exact layout and type of development had not yet been determined . The area in which the applicant company ’s property was situated was marked as a “ white area ” , which , according to the applicant , meant that no specific type of development had yet been determined for the site , as opposed to a “ green area ” , which meant that it was to be conserved and that no development would be allowed . Moreover , the land was situated within the boundaries of development . It followed , according to the applicant , that development of the zone was surely permissible .

DATE land development in GPE was generally governed by the guidelines set out in LAW . During this time , the applicant company alleged that various properties in the vicinity of its land , situated within the “ white area ” , had been developed ( mostly for residence purposes ) and the Government had built social housing complexes in the area . In DATE ( after the scheduling order referred to in the paragraph below came into effect ) permission was given to build a road , giving access to CARDINAL private hotels situated further in from the applicant company ’s land , at the lower reaches of “ the valley ” .

By a notice ( no . CARDINAL ) published in ORG of DATE , the site owned by the applicant was declared to be scheduled for conservation purposes in terms of section CARDINAL of LAW ( DATE ) ( “ the LAW ” ) . ORG ( “ ORG ” ) , the successor to ORG , considered the site to form part of the valley protection zone and its buffer zone , entailing level - CARDINAL protection , namely the lowest level of protection for scheduling purposes . In consequence , the use of the land was limited to agricultural purposes .

A number of different applications lodged by the applicant company on unspecified dates , asking for permission to develop the land , were dismissed by ORG .

On DATE the applicant company filed an appeal with ORG ( “ ORG ” ) against the scheduling of its land . It argued that the area at issue should not have been scheduled in this way since there was no reason to conserve it , apart from the maquis vegetation found at its north eastern edge . Nor could the land be considered to be rural , bearing in mind that it was surrounded by a highly urbanised area . According to its experts’ reports , the applicant company was of the view that the area should be considered suitable for commercial development and not a valley protection zone , a notion which was not mentioned in the Structure Plan . Nor could it be considered to be a rural conservation area , an area of ecological importance or a site of scientific importance .

By a judgment of DATE the applicant company ’s appeal was dismissed and the contested scheduling confirmed . Referring to the findings of ORG , the ORG considered that the land at issue served as a buffer zone to the ecologically important “ valley ” and , therefore , qualified as a level - CARDINAL protection area of ecological importance , mainly acting as a buffer zone to the more important “ valley ” . The inclusion of buffer zones had been mentioned in the Structure Plan ’s Explanatory Memorandum as falling under the heading of areas of ecological importance and sites of scientific importance . Moreover , the applicant company had acknowledged the existence of the maquis vegetation , and this in itself allowed for the lowest level of protection according to LAW and therefore sufficed , according to the applicable law , in order to declare the land to be scheduled for conservation purposes . As to the use of the land for agricultural purposes , although this was not established by ORG , this was the actual use to which the land was being put at the relevant time . In conclusion , the land was indeed of ecological / scientific importance , and even though the term “ valley protection zone ” was not a legal term , it was understood as falling under the definition of areas which were to be protected according to Policies ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant company appealed to ORG . During these proceedings , in DATE , it further complained that the ORG was infringing its property rights since : ( i ) ORG had acted outside the parameters of the law by de facto expropriating the property , as the LAW did not provide for the scheduling of property for valley protection or buffer zones ; ( ii ) the scheduling was not required for a public purpose ; and ( iii ) the LAW did not provide for payment of compensation upon the scheduling of property , notwithstanding that its property had diminished in value ( allegedly from ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The applicant company insisted that when it had acquired the land it was already situated in a developed area and , indeed , part of its land had been taken for the purpose of building a road to guarantee access to the built - up entertainment zone . However , as a consequence of the scheduling in question , the land had become worthless and the applicant company ’s investment futile . Moreover , since other permits had been issued for development of the area notwithstanding its environmental value , the applicant company had been discriminated against in the dismissal of its requests .

On DATE ORG referred the matter to the constitutional jurisdiction .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) , in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction , upheld the applicant company ’s claims in part . It considered that , although there had not been a de facto expropriation , the ORG had been controlling the use of the applicant company ’s property , thereby limiting the latter ’s right of ownership . It was not necessary to go on to consider the legality of the measure , as this was deemed to be within the competence of the ordinary courts . It then considered it relevant that when the applicant company had purchased the land , it had been aware that the land was situated in a “ white area ” , which meant that only limited development could take place . In the meantime the land had become a “ green area ” , and development was no longer possible , in order to protect the valley on the periphery of which the applicant ’s land was situated . The court held that while it was true and unfortunate that the area surrounding the valley was fully developed , it was legitimate and in the general interest for ORG to protect what was left of it . However , it considered that there had been a violation of the applicant company ’s rights since no compensation had been granted to it following the permanent scheduling of its land . Lastly , it held that the applicant company had not been discriminated against , as the only land in a comparable position , namely land which had been scheduled but on which development had nevertheless been permitted , was the road built by the Government . This constituted a project in the general interest , as opposed to the applicant company ’s project , which was solely commercial and in the interest of private parties . Thus , the difference in treatment had been justified .

MEPA and the Attorney General appealed and the applicant company cross - appealed . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected a request by the applicant company for leave to submit new evidence .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld in part the first - instance judgment and quashed the rest , dismissing all the applicant company ’s original claims . It emphasised that the applicant had purchased the land when it had been designated as a “ white area ” . Thus , the potential for development of the land was limited and uncertain , since no guidelines or framework had yet been put in place to regulate it . In fact , as happened in the applicant company ’s case , its land was eventually scheduled as a level CARDINAL buffer zone to “ the valley ” , which was highly protected ( level CARDINAL ) , being an area of ecological and scientific importance . The scheduling of the applicant company ’s land had been in accordance with the relevant policies ( namely , ORG CARDINAL ) and the Structure Plan , which provided that “ small to medium scale physical developments can be considered , provided no suitable alternatives exist and features of ecological and scientific interest are protected , in so far as a suitable environmental impact assessment is made ” . Moreover , at the date of judgment the land had become a green area according to the CARDINAL Local Plan .

In answer to the applicant company ’s grounds of appeal , it confirmed that the validity ( legality ) of the scheduling was a matter for the ordinary courts to decide , and that the site was worth protecting in the general interest . The measure of control over use of the property had further restricted its use in that after the original designation of the land as a white area , which might have permitted full development in the future , the land had subsequently been scheduled so as to limit its use to “ small to medium scale physical development ” , according to certain conditions . However , bearing in mind the ORG ’s margin of appreciation in imposing planning restrictions , the aim of the measure had been legitimate and it could not be said that every scheduling of property required adequate compensation . In the present case the applicant company had not been certain that it would be granted permission to develop the land in the future , as the land had been designated as a “ white area ” ; thus , the applicant company had in fact engaged in a commercial speculation project . It followed that the applicant company did not have a legitimate expectation that it would be granted such permits and in consequence it could not be said that it had suffered a disproportionate burden . In the light of the foregoing , no right to compensation arose .

Lastly , as to the complaint regarding discrimination , it considered that the ORG could reasonably have dispelled environmental concerns when building a road in the public interest , a matter which was within its margin of appreciation . Similarly , the authority had not used its discretion manifestly without reasonable foundation when it had failed to schedule the housing estate built by the ORG in an area closer to the valley than the applicant company ’s land , and such a difference in treatment had not been illegitimate or oppressive .

Following the constitutional referral mentioned above , on DATE proceedings resumed before ORG , which by a judgment of DATE dismissed the applicant company ’s appeal . ORG considered that all the grounds raised by the applicant company had been dealt with in the ORG ’s decision and any argument relating to the fact that the ORG had based its decisions on reasons which had not been mentioned in the original scheduling order could not be entertained since this matter had never been brought to the attention of the ORG . Moreover , the applicant ’s appeal before the ORG only concerned matters of fact and not of law , and therefore no appeal to ORG could lie on this ground , such appeals being limited only to points of law in accordance with section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW . It further considered that the scheduling had not been done on the basis of the rural character of the land , but for the reasons enunciated by the ORG , which had been acting within the parameters of the law .

On DATE MEPA adopted ORG , setting up a framework upon which the authority would base its decisions on land use and development for DATE . The applicant company submitted that , as transpired from this plan and the refusal of its applications , further development was to be carried out in the area surrounding “ the valley ” . Indeed , the DATE plan extended the development zone which had been earmarked in the DATE schedules and DATE plan . In DATE Notice was amended to remove an area of land from the scheduled property ( not owned by the applicant company ) and extended the scheduled boundary to cover the entire valley system , delineating the buffer and constraint zone . It further transpired that there was a plan to build a further arterial road which would pass right through the applicant company ’s land and , according to evidence given during the domestic proceedings , a further descheduling would take place to accommodate this project .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , LAW of LAW , reads as follows :

“ The decisions of ORG shall be final . An appeal shall lie to ORG constituted in terms of article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG from such decisions only on points of law decided by ORG in its decision . ”

Section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , before being repealed in DATE , read as follows :

“ The ORG shall prepare , and from time to time review , a list of areas , buildings , structures and remains of geological , paleontological , cultural , archaeological , architectural , historical , antiquarian , or artistic or landscape importance , as well as areas of natural beauty , ecological or scientific value ( hereinafter referred to as ‘ scheduled property’ ) which are to be scheduled for conservation and may in respect of all or any one or more of the scheduled property make conservation orders to regulate their conservation . ... ”


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

PERSON ( hereafter , the first applicant ) owned a flat which measured QUANTITY sq . m. and was situated at FAC , GPE . The flat was in a house situated on a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m. leased by the first applicant . The applicants alleged that Mr PERSON , Mr GPE Safyan and Mr Mihran Safyan ( hereafter , the second , third and fourth applicants ) , the first applicant ’s husband and CARDINAL sons , enjoyed a right of use in respect of this house , while the Government contested this allegation and claimed that they did not enjoy the right of use in respect of the house and simply had the right to live in it .

On DATE the Government adopted Decree no . PERSON , approving the expropriation zones of the immovable property ( plots of land , buildings and constructions ) situated within the administrative boundaries of LOC of GPE to be taken for the needs of the State for the purpose of carrying out construction projects , covering a total area of QUANTITY m. FAC was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones .

On DATE the Government adopted Decree no . CARDINAL-N , contracting out the construction of CARDINAL of the sections of FAC DATE which was to be renamed as FAC – to a private company , GPE .

On DATE GPE and ORG signed an agreement which , inter alia , authorised the former to negotiate directly with the owners of the property subject to expropriation and , should such negotiations fail , to institute court proceedings on behalf of the ORG , seeking forced expropriation of such property .

On DATE GPE CJSC informed the applicants that the flat and the leased plot of land had been valued by a licensed valuation organisation at FAC and offered the first applicant as the owner an equivalent sum in the national currency as compensation . An additional sum of USD MONEY was offered to her as a financial incentive , if she agreed to sign an agreement and to hand over the property within DATE . The other applicants were offered each CARDINAL as compensation and CARDINAL as a financial incentive .

It appears that the applicants did not accept the offer , not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered .

On DATE Glendale Hills CJSC instituted proceedings against the applicants on behalf of the ORG , seeking to oblige them to sign an agreement on the taking of their property for ORG needs and to evict them .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a counter - claim in which she contested the constitutionality of Government Decree no . CARDINAL She submitted , inter alia , that this Decree contradicted LAW , according to which property could be expropriated only through the adoption of a law concerning the property in question . She further submitted that the Government was not authorised under the same Article to decide on the expropriation of property .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE granted the claim of GPE and dismissed the counter - claim of the first applicant , ordering the applicants to sign the agreements offered and that they be evicted . ORG stated , inter alia , that it was not competent to decide upon the constitutionality of Government Decree no . CARDINAL

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal .

On DATE ORG granted the claim of GPE . ORG further terminated the proceedings on the first applicant ’s counter - claim since it was not competent to decide on the constitutionality of government decrees . It also ordered that the applicants pay court fees in the amount of CARDINAL and QUANTITY ( ORG ) .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE they filed additional submissions to their appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ appeal .

On DATE the bailiff instituted the enforcement proceedings and ordered the applicants to comply with the judgment . On CARDINAL DATE the applicants , who had apparently refused to comply voluntarily with the judgment , were forcibly evicted from their home .

For a summary of the relevant domestic provisions see the judgment in the case of PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


The applicant , PERSON PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A. Fuchs , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON ORG , their Agent .

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

From CARDINAL DATE until DATE the applicant served a prison sentence in the Dubnica nad Váhom prison . From DATE until DATE he continued to serve this sentence in the ORG prison . Letters which he sent from the prison to his parents were opened , read and censored by the prison authorities .

From CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained on remand in the ORG detention centre . Letters which he sent from the detention centre to his parents were monitored by the detention centre authorities and opened and read by the police investigator in charge of his case .

The applicant further served other prison sentences in the ORG prison ( from DATE until DATE ) , in the ORG prison ( from DATE until DATE ) and in the ORG prison ( from DATE until DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant addressed a petition ( podnet ) to ORG in which he complained about interference with his correspondence in the period DATE while serving a prison sentence . On DATE ORG declared the petition admissible . ORG informed the applicant several times that legal representation was mandatory in the proceedings before it and requested him to appoint a lawyer . On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had failed to comply with the request .

On DATE , for the second time , the applicant seized ORG . He filed a petition alleging a violation of his right to respect for his correspondence . He referred to the monitoring of his correspondence DATE in the Dubnica nad Váhom prison and the ORG prison , DATE in the PERSON detention centre and DATE in the ORG prison . He apparently submitted copies of letters addressed by him to his father which bore the official stamps showing the date on which the letters had been read by the prison authorities .

In a letter of DATE a single ORG judge informed the applicant that ORG had no jurisdiction ratione temporis to deal with his petition . He noted that all the letters which the applicant had submitted and all the official stamps showing that the prison authorities had read these letters dated back to the period prior to the establishment of ORG on DATE .

In DATE and DATE the applicant addressed the Dubnica nad Váhom prison administration , the public prosecution service , the ORG prison administration and the ORG prison administration with complaints about interference with ORG correspondence .

In their respective letters of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE the director of the Dubnica nad Váhom prison , the PERSON I District Office of Public Prosecution , the director of the ORG prison and the director of the ORG prison informed the applicant about the relevant provisions of FAC and ORG governing monitoring of ORG correspondence . They observed that the applicable legal rules had not been breached in the applicant ’s case .

In DATE the applicant lodged an action against ( i ) ORG ; ( ii ) ORG ( Generálne riaditeľstvo zboru väzenskej a justičnej stráže ) ; ( iii ) ORG ; ( iv ) ORG in ORG , PERSON and PERSON – Šaca prisons ; and ( v ) several officials of ORG . He sought protection of his personal integrity and compensation for moral damage in connection with the alleged violation of the secrecy of his correspondence while in detention and serving his prison sentences .

On DATE the ORG ( ORG súd ) dismissed the applicant ’s request for an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee and for legal aid . On DATE the ORG ( Krajský súd ) upheld this decision .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings as , despite its CARDINAL previous requests and warnings , the applicant had failed to pay the court fee . On DATE , on the applicant ’s appeal , ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE , for the third time , the applicant again seized ORG with a complaint of an interference with his correspondence while in the ORG prison DATE and of the discontinuation of the civil proceedings on his civil action of DATE .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . It found that the applicant had raised his new complaint about the interference with his correspondence outside the CARDINAL months’ timelimit pursuant to LAW . ORG further found that the applicant had failed to exhaust legal remedies as regards his complaint about the discontinuance of his civil proceedings in that he had not lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of ORG of DATE .

Article CARDINAL provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Secrecy of correspondence , other communications and written messages delivered by post and protection of personal information shall be guaranteed .

No one shall violate the secrecy of letters , other communications and written messages kept private or delivered by post or otherwise , except in cases specified by law . This provision applies to communications delivered by telephone , telegraph and other similar means . ”

Article CARDINAL , as in force from DATE , provides that :

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

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

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

LAW ) , as in force until DATE , provided that :

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

The implementation of the above provision of LAW is set out in more detail in sections CARDINAL of LAW No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG . , as amended . The relevant amendment entered into force on DATE . Pursuant to Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) :

“ A constitutional complaint shall be lodged within a period of DATE from the date on which the decision in question has become final and binding or on which a measure has been notified or on which a notice of other interference has been given . As regards the measures and other interferences , the above period shall commence when the complainant could have become aware of them . ”

The lex generalis governing execution of prison sentences is LAW No . CARDINAL Coll . , as amended . Its Section CARDINAL deals with the correspondence of convicted prisoners . Paragraph CARDINAL , as amended from DATE by LAW . , provides that :

“ A convicted prisoner may receive and send correspondence without restriction . The prison director or other persons authorised by him may inspect ( nahliadnuť ) ORG correspondence with the exception of petitions , complaints or requests addressed to public authorities and correspondence with ORG lawyers sent to their professional address . ”

Further details concerning the execution of prison sentences are set out in FAC issued by the Minister of Justice in the form of a Regulation published in the official LAW . ORG No . PERSON . was in force from CARDINAL DATE until DATE . Section CARDINAL dealt with the correspondence of convicted prisoners . Its relevant part provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Letters sent by or to convicted prisoners may be inspected ( nahliadnuť ) without their consent only by the prison director or by the prison ’s social workers authorised by him . This authorisation shall be made public in the prison ’s ordinance ( ústavný poriadok ) .

In the event that letters sent to convicted prisoners are inspected , they must be handed over to them without delay .

The provisions of this Section do not relate to correspondence under LAW of ORG [ dealing with the protection of convicted ORG rights ] which is sent to convicted prisoners by the authorities referred to in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW [ see above ] . ”

On DATE ORG . ORG . came into force . Convicted ORG correspondence is governed by Section CARDINAL which , insofar as relevant , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Incoming or outgoing correspondence of convicted prisoners can be inspected ( nahliadnuť ) without their consent only by the prison director or members of the prison staff authorised by him . In the event that letters sent to convicted prisoners are inspected , they must be handed over to them without delay with the exception of the correspondence referred to in LAW .

Letters with offensive content which damage the interests of the convicted prisoner or other persons or entities and letters encouraging criminal activity or containing unauthorised objects shall be placed in the convicted prisoner ’s personal file . He or she shall be informed accordingly . Any further action shall depend on the nature of the information or object retained . ”

According to LAW :

“ Any natural person shall have the right to protection of his or her personal integrity ( osobnosť ) , in particular his or her life and health , civil and human dignity , privacy , name and personal characteristics . ”

Pursuant to ArticleCARDINAL :

“ CARDINAL . Any natural person shall have the right to request that an unjustified infringement of his or her personal integrity be stopped , that the consequences of such an infringement be eliminated , and that he or she be provided appropriate satisfaction .

NORP In cases when the satisfaction obtained under paragraph CARDINAL [ of that Article ] is not sufficient , in particular because a person ’s dignity and position in society has been considerably diminished , the injured person shall be entitled to monetary compensation for nonpecuniary damage .

When determining the amount of the compensation under paragraph CARDINAL [ of that Article ] , the courts shall take into account the seriousness of the prejudice suffered by the person concerned and the circumstances under which the violation of that person ’s rights occurred . ”