Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Mihai Poalelungi;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a tradesman specialised in installing roof drainage systems . In DATE he accepted money from CARDINAL different people in exchange for installing drainage systems in their houses . However , he failed to carry out the required work and declared that he no longer had the money , promising to return it later .

NORP In TIME of DATE he was arrested by the police and brought to FAC in GPE , on the grounds of having committed the administrative offence of insulting a police officer . He was allegedly forced to return the money which he had taken from PERSON for installing a roof drainage system on his house . According to the applicant , he had not managed to finish the work on that installation when PERSON asked for the money to be returned and also involved his relatives who worked at FAC in order to intimidate the applicant and obtain full repayment .

On DATE PERSON made a complaint to the police , according to which the applicant had defrauded him by accepting money and refusing to return it , while having failed to carry out any work . On DATE a criminal investigation against the applicant was initiated .

On an unspecified date CARDINAL of the applicant ’s relatives paid MONEY ( ORG ) to PERSON , who signed a statement to the effect that he no longer had any claims against the applicant .

On DATE the prosecutor asked ORG to order the applicant ’s detention for DATE . The applicant was accused of defrauding PERSON by accepting CARDINAL NORP lei ( approximately FAC at the time ) in DATE as payment for installing a roof drainage system , but failing to carry out any work . He was also accused of CARDINAL similar offences , but no details other than the case numbers were given . Details were given at subsequent court hearings . A hearing was scheduled for DATE at ORG .

The applicant ’s lawyer was not able to read the prosecutor ’s request until immediately before the hearing and was not given a copy at that time . He did not see any other documents being submitted to the investigating judge to substantiate the prosecutor ’s request and no documents were shown to the defence or discussed by the investigating judge at the hearing .

During the hearing of DATE the lawyer informed the court of the payment of ORG CARDINAL to PERSON The prosecutor present at the hearing declared that there was no evidence of any repayment of the monies to PERSON The lawyer then asked that PERSON be heard in order to confirm that payment . The court did not take any formal decision in respect of PERSON and the latter was not heard before the court adopted its decision . During the same hearing , the applicant submitted that he had been arrested on DATE . The prosecutor confirmed that , stating that the applicant had been arrested on an administrative charge and then arrested again as a suspect in the criminal proceedings . The applicant ’s lawyer argued that since his client was suspected of having committed a crime , he should have been arrested in accordance with the criminal procedure . The court did not react in any way to this argument , confining its reasoning to the applicant ’s detention after DATE .

In his decision of DATE the investigating judge of ORG granted the prosecutor ’s request and ordered the applicant ’s detention pending trial for DATE . The reasons given were that :

“ the act of which [ the applicant ] is accused is considered a minor crime , which is a legitimate ground for detention pending trial ; the character , degree of harm and circumstances of the crime constitute sufficient grounds for supposing that [ the applicant ] will interfere with the normal course of the investigation ; the materials submitted to the court clearly confirm that there is a reasonable suspicion that [ the applicant ] committed a minor crime , and there are sufficient grounds to prevent [ the applicant ] from hindering the establishment of the truth and from absconding from the investigating authority ; the materials in the file confirm the reasonable suspicion that [ the applicant ] might reoffend , as it follows from the information obtained by the investigating authority during the operational phase of the investigation that [ the applicant ] may have committed other similar offences ; ... [ the applicant ] has no stable income and works periodically , there is no information about his financial status and his state of health is not incompatible with detention ; [ the applicant ] and his lawyer did not submit any evidence in support of their statements ; ... ”

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed , complaining of the applicant ’s de facto arrest on DATE and his detention thereafter , and of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant until DATE . He submitted that the lower court had not dealt with that complaint . He also informed the court of the fact that he had only read the prosecutor ’s request at the hearing of DATE and had not had time to properly prepare for that hearing . Besides the prosecutor ’s request , no other document had been submitted to the court or shown to the defence to substantiate the need for the applicant ’s detention . Nor had the prosecutor referred to any additional documents or other evidence during the hearing . The applicant had asked the first - instance court to hear a witness , who could have confirmed that the applicant had had a contract with PERSON and that PERSON relatives in the police had threatened the applicant if he refused to return the money for the ongoing work , but the court had refused to hear the witness without giving any reasons . Moreover , the judge had relied on grounds which had not been mentioned by the prosecutor , thus showing bias towards the prosecution . The lawyer relied on LAW and referred to the absence of any evidence to support the prosecutor ’s request for the applicant ’s detention pending trial , including the absence of any judgment or other evidence concerning the other similar offences allegedly committed by his client . In the lawyer ’s opinion , there had been no reason to believe that the applicant would abscond or interfere with the investigation . Relying on LAW , the lawyer also complained of the inhuman conditions of his client ’s detention .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal as unfounded , referring to similar grounds as those referred to by the lower court , including that the applicant had allegedly committed other similar offences “ as [ could ] be seen from the criminal file ” .

On DATE the prosecutor asked for an extension of the applicant ’s detention pending trial for DATE . He referred to CARDINAL separate occasions on which the applicant had been accused of having accepted money for installing roof drainage systems but had failed to do so , including in respect of PERSON

On DATE the investigating judge of ORG granted the request and ordered the applicant ’s detention pending trial for DATE . The court noted that

“ ... a serious crime has been committed for which the law provides a penalty of DATE imprisonment ; there has been no compensation for the pecuniary damage caused ; there are reasons to believe that [ the applicant ] could abscond or interfere with the normal and objective course of the investigation ; the grounds on which the initial detention was ordered remain valid . ”

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed , relying on the same grounds as in his previous appeal . He added that his client had told the lower court that he owed no debt to PERSON , whom he had reimbursed fully . Moreover , the lawyer had read the prosecutor ’s request only immediately before the hearing of CARDINAL DATE . No documents other than the prosecutor ’s request had been examined by the court during the hearing or shown to the defence . The lawyer added that the applicant had a stable home life , had CARDINAL children to support and had not been previously convicted of any offence . He again complained of his client ’s inhuman conditions of detention , both at FAC and at ORG ( “ the ORG ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and relied on LAW in that regard .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal , relying on the same grounds as those referred to by the lower court .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s release . The court found that

“ ... [ the applicant ] is accused of having committed a crime for which the law provides punishment [ through ] alternatives [ to imprisonment ] ; he did not abscond from the investigating authority ; he has a permanent residence and CARDINAL children . ”

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , suspended for DATE . In his submissions to the court the applicant acknowledged having taken money from PERSON in DATE . After a while , he had manufactured the relevant items but had not been able to install them because of personal family circumstances obliging him to remain home with his children . The court found that he had taken money from CARDINAL other people in DATE and had also failed to carry out the work which he had undertaken to do for them .

According to the ORG , the applicant had been detained for TIME at FAC on DATE and had then been transferred to ORG ( Comisariatul General de Poliţie or “ the ORG ” ) , where he had been detained until DATE .

The applicant described his conditions of detention at FAC as follows : he had been held in a cell without a bed or any other furniture ; there had been no ventilation , toilet or running water in the cell ; he had not been given any food and had had to beg for it from other detainees ; the cell had been overcrowded and many detainees had smoked , exposing the applicant to passive smoking ; and the cell had been damp .

According to the applicant , at the ORG he had been placed together with CARDINAL other people in a cell measuring QUANTITY . The cell had been dirty and infested with parasitic insects and rats . There had been no furniture in the cell , and the detainees had slept directly on the floor , in their own clothes . The cell had been damp and very cold . A low - intensity lamp , covered by a metal sheet , had been switched on TIME a day and there had not been a window in the cell . The toilet had not been separated from the rest of the cell , offering no privacy . Due to the large number of people using it , the toilet had been occupied most of the time and had smelt bad . The applicant had not been given any personal hygiene items , clean clothes or bed linen . He had had to continually wear the clothes in which he had been arrested . The applicant had received little food , which had been of a very bad quality ( a cup of warm water in TIME and boiled vegetables with warm water for lunch ) . Even though he had had a stomach ulcer and high intracranial blood pressure , he had not received any medical assistance . He had been detained in such conditions for TIME a day , without any right to take exercise or to take part in recreational activities .

The relevant provisions of domestic law have been set out in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) , ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) , PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , and other similar cases in respect of GPE .

The Government submitted a list of laws , regulations , Ministry orders and other acts or bills yet to be enacted which are aimed at improving various aspects of prison conditions and the medical treatment of detainees .

The Government annexed to their observations copies of judgments in the cases of PERSON v. ORG and ORG ; PERSON v. ORG and ORG ; PERSON v. ORG ; and GPE v. ORG , ORG and ORG , all cases in which the applicants had been awarded compensation for ill - treatment and/or inhuman conditions of detention .

The relevant findings of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the ORG ” ) read as follows :

“ A. Institutions of ORG

In so far as the conditions of detention in the police establishments are concerned , it appears that this is the field in which the least progress has been achieved . It is not necessary to enumerate here in detail all the shortcomings observed by the delegation , which are more or less the same as those observed during past visits ( and of which ORG is perfectly aware ) . ... Numerous persons are still detained overnight in police establishments , in cells which should not be used to detain persons for TIME . It is high time to remedy these problems , in particular by placing accused persons under the supervision of institutions of ORG and building new prisons corresponding to ORG standards and to the norms laid down by the NORP legislation .

Persons placed on remand should as a rule be detained in prisons under the authority of ORG . However , such persons may continue to be held in police temporary detention facilities ( izolatoare de detenţie preventivă , abbreviated “ ORG ” ) under the authority of ORG , if this is required for the purposes of the criminal investigation or if the transfer to a pre - trial establishment can not be effected promptly . It is also possible for remand prisoners to be transferred back from prison to an ORG when necessary for the purposes of the investigation or the court proceedings , for periods of DATE at a time .

At the time of the DATE visit , the delegation noted that the average length of stay in IDPs of persons remanded in custody had decreased . For example , at the ORG of ORG in PERSON , the majority of persons who had been remanded in custody were being transferred to Prison No . CARDINAL within DATE . This is a welcome development . Nevertheless , the delegation also gathered evidence of persons remanded in custody spending extended periods of time in IDPs ( e.g. uninterrupted stays of DATE at PERSON ; DATE at ORG in GPE ) . As regards the practice of repeated transfers of remand prisoners between prisons and IDPs , it continued unabated .

As stressed by the ORG in the past , IDPs will never be capable of providing conditions of detention suited for holding persons remanded in custody . The NORP authorities are well aware of the limitations of the existing IDPs and , following a decision to transfer the responsibility for these facilities to ORG by DATE , have been exploring the possibility of constructing CARDINAL new remand prisons in different regions of the country . During the DATE visit , the delegation was informed that this project was still at the conception phase , due to the lack of budgetary resources . ORG was approaching various donors , banks and the public sector in the hope of raising the necessary funding ( estimated at MONEY per remand prison ) .

The ORG calls upon the NORP authorities to give the highest priority to the implementation of the decision to transfer the responsibility for persons remanded in custody to ORG . The objective should be to end completely the practice of holding remand prisoners in police establishments . The return of remand prisoners to police facilities , for whatever purpose , should be sought and authorised only when there is absolutely no other alternative , and for the shortest time possible .

NORP In previous visit reports , the ORG recommended that administrative arrest be no longer exploited by operational police officers to detain and question persons suspected of criminal offences , without their being offered the safeguards inherent in the criminal procedure . Nevertheless , during the DATE visit , the delegation came across a number of persons who were officially being held in IDPs for having committed administrative offences ( e.g. at ORG and ORG in PERSON ) , but were in fact being questioned as criminal suspects , apparently without being allowed to contact a lawyer . Resolute steps should be taken to stamp out this abusive practice , which amounts to circumventing the legal provisions concerning the length of police custody in respect of criminal suspects . The ORG reiterates its previous recommendation that firm instructions be issued to law enforcement officials that persons suspected of criminal offences are to be held and questioned strictly in accordance with the provisions of LAW . ORG also calls upon the NORP authorities to ensure that compliance with this requirement is closely supervised .

Conditions of detention

a. temporary detention facilities ( IDPs )

Following the ORG ’s visit in DATE , the GPE authorities launched a programme for improving material conditions in IDPs , with a view to implementing the ORG ’s recommendations . However , it became clear from the discussions held with ORG officials at the outset of the DATE visit that the programme had not progressed as rapidly as envisaged , due to the lack of funding . At CARDINAL of the establishments visited , the ORG in ORG , the refurbishment had been suspended , and it was unclear when the works would be finished . That said , the delegation was pleased to note that the ORG envisaged occupancy levels once the refurbishment had been completed would be in accordance with the ORG ’s standards ( i.e. cells measuring some CARDINAL m² would hold CARDINAL persons each ) , and that the in - cell toilets would be partitioned off .

Despite the above - mentioned programme , conditions of detention in the IDPs visited remained , in general , very poor . The cells had either no windows ( e.g. at the ORG of ORG in GPE , some of the cells at GPE ORG , one cell at PERSON ORG ) or their windows were covered by shutters which substantially limited access to natural light . As for artificial lighting , it was , as a rule , dim . Particular mention should be made of one cell at PERSON , in which there was no electric bulb ; staff had reportedly told the detainee that he should provide a new bulb himself . Further , the cells were often stuffy , despite the presence of a ventilation system ( which was rarely turned on because of the noise it made ) . Detainees slept on wooden platforms , which took up most of the floor space ; no steps had been taken in respect of providing mattresses and blankets ( the presence of an occasional blanket was attributable to detainees’ families ) . The only exception was the ORG in GPE , where most of the cells were fitted with bunk beds with mattresses .

At the time of the visit , the number of persons held at the IDPs was well below their official capacity . Nevertheless , overcrowding was observed in some of the cells ( e.g. QUANTITY persons in a cell measuring QUANTITY m² at PERSON ) . Further , the delegation came across several cells which were very small ( CARDINAL m² at ORG ; CARDINAL m² at PERSON ) . Cells of such a size are only suitable for short periods of detention .

The arrangements in respect of food varied from CARDINAL establishment to another : at the CARDINAL IDPs in GPE , CARDINAL meals a day were being provided , whereas in PERSON , the number of DATE meals was CARDINAL , and at GPE and PERSON , CARDINAL . The delegation received numerous complaints about the insufficient quantity and poor quality of the food . It was clear that most detainees relied primarily on food parcels delivered by their families .

On a more positive note , all the IDPs visited possessed exercise yards . Detainees were in principle entitled to TIME of outdoor exercise a day . However , at the IDPs in GPE and ORG in GPE , the delegation heard widespread allegations that the outdoor exercise periods were limited to TIME , and did not take place every day . Apart from outdoor exercise , there were no activities ( e.g. access to books , newspapers , radio , board games ) .

To sum up , the conditions prevailing at the IDPs visited continue to render them unsuitable for accommodating persons deprived of their liberty for prolonged periods of time ( which continues to be case of both persons remanded in custody and administrative detainees ) . Reference has already been made in paragraph CARDINAL to the envisaged transfer of responsibility for IDPs to ORG and the setting up new remand prisons , which should correspond to the requirements of NORP legislation and the ORG ’s standards . In the meantime , the GPE authorities should redouble their efforts to find the financial means necessary for providing for the fundamental needs and preserving the dignity of detained persons . In particular , urgent steps should be taken to ensure that :

- all detained persons are provided with a clean mattress and blankets ;

- detained persons receive food of sufficient quantity and improved quality ;

- in - cell lighting ( including access to natural light ) and ventilation are adequate ;

- there is a minimum of CARDINAL m² per person in multi - occupancy cells ;

- detained persons have ready access to communal toilet facilities , and in - cell toilets are equipped with a partition ;

- detained persons are ensured access to washing facilities and are supplied with essential personal hygiene products ;

- all detained persons have access to outdoor exercise of TIME per day .

The ORG also recommends that steps be taken to provide some form of activity in addition to outdoor exercise to persons held in excess of DATE at IDPs . ”

“ CARDINAL . During the DATE visit , the delegation observed that the practice of holding remand prisoners in police temporary detention facilities ( izolatoare de detenţie preventivă , abbreviated “ ORG ” ) continued unabated . In the report on the DATE visit , the ORG called upon the GPE authorities to give the highest priority to the implementation of the decision to transfer the responsibility for persons remanded in custody to ORG . In response , ORG indicated that it was in favour of a temporary transfer of responsibility for IDPs to ORG , pending the building of pre - trial establishments under the latter ORG authority . However , at DATE visit , the Minister of Justice indicated that the responsibility for the IDPs could not be taken over by his Ministry because conditions of detention in these facilities were substandard .

The ORG shares the view that IDPs do not offer suitable conditions for holding persons remanded in custody . ORG would nevertheless like to stress that , in the interests of the prevention of ill - treatment , the sooner a criminal suspect passes into the hands of a custodial authority which is functionally and institutionally separate from the police , the better . The delegation ’s findings from the DATE visit support that ; most cases of alleged police ill - treatment in the context of the DATE events had emerged only after the persons concerned had been transferred to an establishment under ORG or released . The ORG recommends that , pending the building of new pre - trial establishments , the GPE authorities take steps to transfer the responsibility for IDPs to ORG . Further , the ORG would like to receive up - to - date information on progress made to build new pre - trial establishments under ORG .

NORP The legal framework for deprivation of liberty of administrative detainees is provided by LAW , which entered into force after the DATE events , on DATE , and replaced LAW . According to the new legal provisions , the persons concerned may be sentenced to DATE of deprivation of liberty , a period which may be extended to DATE if they have committed CARDINAL offence .

In the past , the ORG repeatedly recommended that detention for administrative offences no longer be exploited by operational police officers in order to detain and question persons suspected of criminal offences , without their being offered the safeguards inherent in the criminal procedure . The delegation ’s findings from the DATE visit suggest that such abusive practices were widespread in the context of the DATE events . The ORG is therefore pleased to note that the new LAW restricts the powers of the police to hold persons , on their own authority , for TIME . However , the delegation heard some recent allegations from detained persons that proceedings under LAW ( for insulting law enforcement officials , for instance ) had been initiated against them after they had refused to confess to a criminal offence , despite their correct behaviour vis - à - vis the police , and that their objections had little weight before prosecutors and judges . The lack of access to a lawyer in practice , at this stage of the procedure , had exacerbated this situation . The ORG recommends that prosecutors and judges be encouraged to be particularly vigilant as to the possible exploitation by the police of the provisions of LAW to circumvent the length of police custody in respect of criminal suspects . Reference is also made to paragraph CARDINAL as regards access to a lawyer .

According to LAW , persons under administrative arrest by virtue of LAW should be detained , as a minimum , in conditions provided for sentenced prisoners placed under an “ initial ” regime in penitentiary establishments . That said , it appeared during the DATE visit that a number of persons under arrest continued to serve their administrative sentences in police establishments , which certainly do not offer such conditions . The ORG recommends that the GPE authorities take all the necessary measures to ensure that persons under administrative arrest serve their sentences in penitentiary establishments .

The ORG notes with satisfaction that the cells of the ORG of ORG in PERSON had been fitted with beds and that some repair works had been carried out DATE before the visit . However , the conditions prevailing in this facility were still not suitable for the prolonged periods for which remand prisoners and administrative detainees were being held in it : high official occupancy levels in the cells ( e.g. CARDINAL places in a CARDINAL ORG cell ) , poor in - cell lighting , access to outdoor exercise limited to TIME . The ORG recommends that these shortcomings be remedied ( see also the recommendations made in DATE ) . ”

The relevant findings of ORG on torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ORG , CARDINALth session , Report on the special rapporteur ’s mission to GPE , document A / HRC/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/Add.CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) read as follows :

“ Police custody

Despite international and national minimum standards , conditions in some police custody facilities are a source of major concern . Whereas some police stations were suitable at maximum for short - term police custody , in some cases , notably in GPE , PERSON , and at FAC , the conditions amounted to inhuman treatment . In those police stations , persons were held in small , badly ventilated cells with little or no daylight sometimes for DATE . However , according to official sources , some of the police custody facilities had been closed in order to improve conditions ( PERSON , GPE , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ) .

Notwithstanding some measures taken by the ORG , many persons in police custody complained about the quality and quantity of the food , although some said that it had slightly improved . Detainees in some police stations ( e.g. PERSON ) indicated that they received food only once per day . Lack of access to medical care was another major concern . Some of the cells were not equipped with mattresses and persons in police custody were not given blankets to sleep on .

The Special Rapporteur received consistent allegations that the minimum time required by national law for exercise ( TIME per day ) is not respected in many cases . At several police stations , detainees indicated that they are allowed to walk only for TIME . This is exacerbated by the fact that some spend long periods of DATE in police custody . The CARDINAL shower per week requirement is not always respected . Moreover , the toilet in the cells consists normally of a bucket or an open toilet without flush , at best separated by QUANTITY high walls . Since often CARDINAL person is detained in a cell , these sanitary facilities deprive the detainees of their privacy . Furthermore , this situation generates not only an unpleasant smell , but also a critical hygienic situation . ”

In their reply to the above - quoted report , the NORP authorities acknowledged the seriousness of the problem of ensuring appropriate conditions of detention in GPE and stated that most of the necessary legislative measures had already been taken . The lack of financing for implementing the measures decided upon was the single most serious impediment to solving the problem .

The relevant findings of ORG , adopted at its CARDINALrd session on DATE ( document CAT / C / MDA / CO/CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ Conditions of detention

The ORG welcomes the amendment in DATE of LAW , which reduced minimum and maximum penalties , prompted a general review of penalties and reoffending , and provided for alternatives to detention , thus contributing to the reduction in the total number of prison population in the State party . ORG also welcomes reconstruction , repairs and maintenance work carried out in a number of penitentiary institutions starting from DATE . Despite ORG efforts to improve the conditions of detention , the ORG remains concerned at overcrowding in certain facilities and that conditions remain harsh , with insufficient ventilation and lighting , poor sanitation and hygiene facilities and inadequate access to healthcare . The ORG is concerned about reports about inter - prisoner violence , including sexual violence and intimidation , in places of detention . ( article CARDINAL )

ORG should :

( a ) Take the necessary measures to alleviate the overcrowding of penitentiary institutions , inter alia , through the application of alternative measures to imprisonment and through initiating at its own initiative a review of sentences with a view of bringing them in compliance with the DATE amendments of LAW . ORG party should continue making available the necessary material , human and budgetary resources to ensure that the conditions of detention in the country are in conformity with minimum international standards ; ... ”


Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-b;Violation of Art. 11;Violation of P7-2;Remainder inadmissible

Alvina Gyulumyan;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She works as a cook .

In DATE a presidential election took place in GPE . Following the election , the applicant participated in a series of rallies of protest organised in GPE by the opposition parties .

On DATE at TIME a demonstration was held in the centre of GPE on the occasion of DATE . The demonstration took place on FAC next to ORG ( PERSON ) . It appears that the demonstration was of a political nature and criticism of the Government and of the conduct of the presidential election was voiced .

The applicant alleged , and the Government did not dispute , that traffic was suspended by the traffic police on the relevant stretch of the Avenue prior to the commencement of the demonstration in order to facilitate its conduct . The applicant took part in the demonstration and the following march .

According to the applicant , at TIME she went to work . After work at TIME the applicant went home . On her way home , she was approached by CARDINAL men in civilian clothes who , without presenting themselves , started dragging her to a nearby car . The applicant screamed and tried to resist . The men twisted her arms , punched her and pushed her into the car . The applicant was taken to LOC of GPE ( ՀՀ ոստիկանության ORG քաղաքի կենտրոնական բաժին ) , where she found out that she had been arrested for having participated in the demonstration .

At FAC , the arresting police officers drew up a record of the applicant ’s arrest ( արձանագրություն բերման ենթարկելու մասին ) in which it was stated that the applicant had been “ arrested at TIME at CARDINAL FAC for violating public order ” . The applicant alleged that the time of her apprehension was not correctly recorded . In reality she was arrested at TIME

One of the arresting police officers reported to the Head of FAC ( ՀՀ ոստիկանության Երևան քաղաքի կենտրոնական բաժնի պետ ) that :

“ ... [ the applicant ] was brought to FAC for having participated on DATE in an unauthorised march headed from the [ ORG ] to ORG and violated public order ... ”

The applicant was subjected to a search during which no illegal items were found . A relevant record was drawn up .

NORP The police officers questioned the applicant . She made a written statement ( արձանագրություն բացատրություն վերցնելու մասին ) in which she gave details of her participation in the demonstration and the following march . She stated , inter alia , that the street traffic was obstructed when the march headed towards the building of ORG . She was in the front line holding the NORP flag and screaming “ justice ” . The applicant alleged that this statement was made under pressure and was dictated to her by the police officers . While most of this statement was true , its part concerning the obstruction of traffic did not correspond to the reality since the traffic had been beforehand suspended by the traffic police .

The police officers drew up a record of an administrative offence ( վարչական իրավախախտման արձանագրություն ) in which it was stated that the applicant had “ participated in a march and violated public order ” . The applicant ’s actions were qualified under LAW ( Վարչական իրավախախտումների վերաբերյալ ՀՀ օրենսգիրք – “ the CAO ” ) as minor hooliganism . This record was signed by the applicant . She also put her signature in the section certifying that she had been made aware of her rights under LAW . In the section marked as “ other information relevant for the determination of the case ” , the applicant also added “ I do not wish to have a lawyer ” .

The applicant alleged that she was forced to sign this and other documents prepared by the police officers under threat of violence . Furthermore , they persuaded her to refuse a lawyer by insisting that a lawyer ’s involvement would not help and would only be detrimental to her case . DATE at TIME she was taken to Judge PERSON of the GPE and ORG of GPE ( Երևան քաղաքի Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների առաջին ատյանի դատարան ) , who examined the case .

The Government contested this allegation . According to them , the applicant was kept at FAC for TIME and taken to Judge PERSON at TIME During this period , the police officers explained to the applicant her right to have a lawyer and advised her to avail herself of this right , which she did not wish to do . The record of an administrative offence was signed by the applicant voluntarily and without any objections . Furthermore , the applicant failed to initiate any actions aimed at the defence of her rights , such as lodging motions or availing herself of other procedural rights guaranteed by LAW ORG , despite having been made aware of them .

The materials of the applicant ’s administrative case , which were transmitted by the police to Judge PERSON for examination , contained the following documents : ( CARDINAL ) the record of an administrative offence ; ( CARDINAL ) the police report ; ( CARDINAL ) the record of the applicant ’s arrest ; ( CARDINAL ) the record of the search of the applicant ; and ( CARDINAL ) the applicant ’s written statement . All these documents were signed by the applicant except the police report .

Judge PERSON , after a brief hearing , sentenced the applicant under LAW ORG to an administrative fine of QUANTITY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL at the material time ) . The judge ’s entire finding amounted to the following sentence :

“ On DATE between TIME ... on FAC [ the applicant ] , together with a group of people , obstructed street traffic , violated public order by making a loud noise , and incited other participants of the demonstration to do the same ... ”

According to the record of the court hearing DATE drawn up in a calligraphic handwriting – the hearing was held in public with the participation of the judge , a clerk and the applicant . The judge explained the applicant ’s rights to her and informed her of the possibility to challenge the judge and the clerk . The applicant did not wish to lodge any challenges . She stated that she was aware of her rights and did not wish to have a lawyer . The judge read out the motion submitted by the police , seeking to impose administrative liability on the applicant . The applicant submitted that at TIME she had participated in a march which had taken place in LOC of GPE , during which they had obstructed the traffic and invited other people to join them . No questions were put to the applicant . Thereafter , the judge read out and examined the materials prepared by the police . Having familiarised herself with these materials , the applicant accepted that she had signed the record of an administrative offence . The judge departed to the deliberation room , after which he returned and announced the decision .

The applicant alleged , and the Government did not explicitly dispute , that the above record was a fake and was drafted at some point after the hearing in order to create an appearance of lawfulness . In reality there was no clerk and the hearing was not being recorded . The hearing lasted not TIME and was conducted in Judge PERSON ’s office . The applicant further alleged that , contrary to what the record stated , only the judge , the applicant and the accompanying police officer were present at the hearing . The latter did not as such participate in the hearing and his functions were limited only to bringing the applicant before the judge . The judge neither explained her rights , nor asked whether she wanted to have a lawyer . The materials of the case file were not read out and she was not allowed to make any oral submissions . No evidence was taken or examined . The judge simply prepared the above decision , solely on the basis of the materials prepared by the police , and only in the end broke the silence to threaten the applicant with imminent detention if she did not refrain from further participation in demonstrations .

On DATE the applicant complained to the GPE and ORG ( Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների դատախազ ) about the above - mentioned events . In particular , she submitted that she had been arrested on false accusations . The police officers had drafted a document and forced her to sign it without reading it . At TIME she had been brought before a judge who had sentenced her to a fine without any examination of the case . She further submitted that she had sustained an injury to her wrist in the course of the arrest . She sought to undergo an official medical examination and to have criminal proceedings instituted against the police officers .

NORP The applicant alleged that in reply she was asked to appear in DATE . It appears that she did not pursue her application any further .

On DATE at TIME another demonstration was organised in the same area by the opposition parties . The demonstration was followed by a march towards the Government building where the inauguration ceremony of the elected President was taking place . The applicant was in the front line of the march , holding the NORP flag .

According to the applicant , the march was blocked at the very beginning of FAC by special forces . Since the demonstrators insisted on continuing their march , the special forces started to disperse the demonstration with rubber clubs . She submits that she was ordered by a police officer to hand over the flag . She refused to do so , after which she was beaten and taken to a police car .

At TIME the applicant was brought to FAC . The arresting police officers drew up a record of her arrest in which it was stated that she had been “ arrested for having violated public order during the march of DATE ” .

One of the arresting police officers reported to the Head of FAC that :

“ ... during the march which took place on DATE after the demonstration next to the [ ORG ] I noticed CARDINAL citizen who was violating public order : waving a flag while walking on the driveway , obstructing the regular traffic of public transport , creating an emergency situation , randomly hitting passers - by who were not taking part in the demonstration with the long flagpole , and inciting others to follow her example ... ”

The police officers questioned the applicant . A statement was taken from her , although this time it was not written by the applicant herself . According to the statement , when the special forces blocked the march , the applicant who was in the frontline started to demand to pass through . They ignored her demands and ordered her to leave . The applicant started to shout and hit the people standing behind her with the flagpole so that they would pay attention and also start to demand to pass through , after which she got arrested . She also admitted in the statement that ORG was blocked because of the march .

The police officers drew up a record of an administrative offence in which it was stated that the applicant had “ made a loud noise with a group of people , and randomly insulted and hit passers - by in LOC ” . Her actions were qualified under LAW ORG as minor hooliganism .

All the above documents , including the record of an administrative offence , were signed by the applicant with the exception of the police report . She also put her signature in the section of the record certifying that she had been made aware of her rights under LAW . In the section marked as “ other information relevant for the determination of the case ” , the applicant also added “ I do not wish to have a lawyer in administrative proceedings ” .

The applicant initially submitted that she had refused to sign any documents during her arrest of DATE . In a later submission , she claimed that due to the injuries and stress suffered during the apprehension she could hardly stand and was in a difficult physical and psychological condition . As a result , she signed the record of an administrative offence unconsciously and without first familiarising herself with it . Later she did not even remember that she had signed any documents . She refused a lawyer for the same reasons as on DATE . At TIME she was taken to the same Judge PERSON of the GPE and ORG of GPE , who examined the case .

The Government contested this allegation . According to them , the applicant was kept at FAC for TIME and taken to Judge PERSON at around TIME The circumstances of her stay at the police station were similar to the ones of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Judge PERSON sentenced the applicant under LAW of administrative detention . The judge ’s entire finding amounted to the following :

“ On DATE between TIME and TIME in LOC of GPE [ the applicant ] , swearing loudly and hitting passers - by , obstructed street traffic and violated public order .

In deciding on the administrative penalty , [ the court ] takes into account as an aggravating circumstance the repetition of the anti - social behaviour of DATE , i.e. re - commission of a similar offence within DATE , and the offence being committed by a group of people . ”

NORP This decision also indicated that the applicant had no dependants .

The record of this hearing is almost identical in wording to the record of the hearing of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , with the exception that the applicant added in her submissions that she and other demonstrators had incited passers - by to participate in the demonstration . They had arguments with a few of them and there were also some swear words used , since some of the passers - by tried to mock her . She touched the passers - by with the flagpole accidentally .

The applicant alleged , and the Government did not explicitly dispute , that this hearing was in reality conducted in the same manner as the CARDINAL of DATE . In addition , the judge asked the applicant “ if you promise in writing that from now on you will not participate in demonstrations and marches any more , I will fine you and let you go home , otherwise I will detain you ” . The applicant replied that she had participated and would continue to participate , because she had not violated any laws and nobody had the right to prohibit her from enjoying her constitutional rights . The judge pronounced the sentence , after which she was taken to a detention centre where she served her sentence .

On DATE the applicant applied to a local human rights NGO DATE ( « Փետրվարի CARDINAL GPE իրավապաշտպան կազմակերպություն ) , complaining about the events of CARDINAL and DATE and seeking its assistance . She submitted , inter alia , that on DATE the police officers had prepared some documents and forced her to sign them without even familiarising herself with them first .

On DATE the NGO complained to the GPE and ORG ( Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների դատախազ ) on behalf of the applicant .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the GPE and ORG ( Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների դատախազ ) informed the NGO that the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE had been well - founded and there were no grounds for appeal .

For a summary of the relevant domestic provisions and international documents and reports see the judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . GPE , § § DATE , DATE ) .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a doctor .

On DATE , another doctor , PERSON , brought a case against the applicant before ORG , requesting compensation for defamation . PERSON alleged that the applicant had diffused false information among his patients to the effect that he had been selling a certain unauthorised medicine . PERSON relied on a note obtained from a certain patient FAC , in which the name of the medicine , as well as his name and work address were written . According to the plaintiff , this note was written by the applicant in order to damage his reputation .

In the course of the proceedings , the court heard statements from several witnesses such as doctors and nurses working at the health centre , who confirmed PERSON ’s account of the facts . In particular , some of the witnesses submitted that they had seen GPE with this note .

At the hearing on DATE the applicant admitted having written the name of the medicine on the paper , but denied having written the other notes .

It appears from the case file that the applicant did not request the court to hear GPE during the proceedings .

On DATE the court , on the basis of the witness testimonies as well as the statements given at the hearing of DATE , found it established that the applicant had directed the patients towards GPE and therefore ordered the applicant to pay compensation .

On DATE the applicant appealed . In his appeal petition , the applicant submitted inter alia that the trial court had failed to hear evidence from GPE

On DATE , finding the judgment of the first instance court in line with domestic law , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment .


CASE OF STEEL AND MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

During the period with which this application is concerned , ORG was at times employed as a part - time bar worker , earning MONEY ( GBP ) per week , and was at other times unwaged and dependent on income support . Mr PERSON , a former postal worker , was unwaged and in receipt of income support . He was a single parent , responsible for the day - to - day care of his son , aged CARDINAL when the trial began . At all material times the applicants were associated with ORG , a small group , unconnected to ORG , which campaigned principally on environmental and social issues .

In DATE GPE Greenpeace began an anti - ORG campaign . In DATE a CARDINAL - page leaflet entitled “ What 's wrong with ORG ? ” ( “ the leaflet ” ) was produced and distributed as part of that campaign . It was last reprinted in DATE .

The first page of the leaflet showed a grotesque cartoon image of a man , wearing a GPE and with dollar signs in his eyes , hiding behind a “ PERSON ” clown mask . Running along the top of pages CARDINAL to CARDINAL was a header comprised of the ORG 's “ golden arches ” symbol , with the words “ PERSON , PERSON , GPE , GPE , DATE ... ” and so forth superimposed on it .

The text of page CARDINAL of the leaflet read as follows ( extract ) :

“ What 's the connection between ORG 's and starvation in the ' Third World ' ?

THERE 's no point feeling guilty about eating while watching starving NORP children on TV . If you do send money to ORG , or shop at GPE , etc . , that 's morally good but politically useless . It shifts the blame from governments and does nothing to challenge the power of multinational corporations .

HUNGRY FOR DOLLARS

ORG is CARDINAL of several giant corporations with investments in vast tracts of land in poor countries , sold to them by the dollar - hungry rulers ( often military ) and privileged elites , evicting the small farmers that live there growing food for their own people .

The power of the GPE dollar means that in order to buy technology and manufactured goods , poor countries are trapped into producing more and more food for export to the GPE . Out of CARDINAL of the world 's poorest countries , CARDINAL export food to the GPE – the wealthiest .

ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM

Some ' Third World ' countries , where most children are undernourished , are actually exporting their staple crops as animal feed – i.e. to fatten cattle for turning into burgers in the ' ORG . QUANTITY of the best farmland in poor countries are being used for our benefit – for tea , coffee , tobacco , etc . – while people there are starving . ORG is directly involved in this economic imperialism , which keeps most black people poor and hungry while many whites grow fat .

GROSS MISUSE OF RESOURCES

GRAIN is fed to cattle in NORP countries to produce the meat in ORG hamburgers . Cattle consume CARDINAL times the amount of grain and soy that humans do : CARDINAL calorie of beef demands QUANTITY of grain . Of QUANTITY of grain and soy fed to livestock , QUANTITY of meat and by - products are used . The waste is QUANTITY a year at a value of MONEY . It has been calculated that this sum would feed , clothe and house the world 's entire population for DATE . ”

The first page of the leaflet also included a photograph of a woman and child , with the caption :

“ A typical image of ' Third World ' poverty – the kind often used by charities to get ' compassion money ' . This diverts attention from one cause : exploitation by multinationals like ORG . ”

The second and third pages of the leaflet contained a cartoon image of a burger , with a cow 's head sticking out of CARDINAL side and saying “ If the slaughterhouse does n't get you ” and a man 's head sticking out of the other , saying “ the junk food will ! ” Pages CARDINAL CARDINAL read as follows :

“ QUANTITY

DATE an area of rainforest the size of GPE is cut down or defoliated , and burnt . Globally , CARDINAL people depend on water flowing from these forests , which soak up rain and release it gradually . The disaster in GPE and GPE is at least partly due to uncontrolled deforestation . In GPE – where there are now CARDINAL beef ranches – torrential rains sweep down through the treeless valleys , eroding the land and washing away the soil . The bare earth , baked by the tropical sun , becomes useless for agriculture . It has been estimated that this destruction causes CARDINAL species of animal , plant or insect to become extinct TIME .

Why is it wrong for ORG to destroy rainforests ?

AROUND the LOC there is a lush green belt of incredibly beautiful tropical forest , untouched by human development for DATE , supporting CARDINAL of the LOC 's life - forms , including CARDINAL plant species , and producing a major part of the planet 's crucial supply of oxygen .

PET FOOD AND LITTER

ORG and ORG are CARDINAL of the many GPE corporations using lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of NORP rainforest to create grazing pastures for cattle to be sent back to the GPE as burgers and pet food , and to provide fast - food packaging materials . ( Do n't be fooled by ORG saying they use recycled paper : only a tiny per cent of it is . The truth is it takes QUANTITY of forest just to keep them supplied with paper for DATE . QUANTITY of this end up littering the cities of ' developed ' countries . )

COLONIAL INVASION

Not only are ORG and many other corporations contributing to a major ecological catastrophe , they are forcing the tribal peoples in the rainforests off their ancestral territories where they have lived peacefully , without damaging their environment , for DATE . This is a typical example of the arrogance and viciousness of multinational companies in their endless search for more and more profit .

It 's no exaggeration to say that when you bite into a ORG , you 're helping ORG 's empire to wreck this planet .

What 's so unhealthy about ORG 's food ?

McDONALD 's try to show in their ' ORG ( which is full of impressive - looking but really quite irrelevant facts and figures ) that mass - produced hamburgers , chips , colas and milkshakes , etc . , are a useful and nutritious part of any diet .

What they do n't make clear is that a diet high in fat , sugar , animal products and salt ( sodium ) , and low in fibre , vitamins and minerals – which describes an average ORG meal – is linked with cancers of the breast and bowel , and heart disease . This is accepted medical fact , not a cranky theory . DATE in GPE , heart disease alone causes CARDINAL deaths .

FAST = JUNK

Even if they like eating them , most people recognise that processed burgers and synthetic chips , served up in paper and plastic containers , is junk - food . ORG prefer the name ' fast - food ' . This is not just because it is manufactured and served up as quickly a possible – it has to be eaten quickly too . It 's a sign of the junk - quality of Big Macs that people actually hold competitions to see who can eat one in the shortest time .

PAYING FOR THE HABIT

Chewing is essential for good health , as it promotes the flow of digestive juices which break down the food and send nutrients into the blood . ORG 's food is so lacking in bulk it is hardly possible to chew it . Even their own figures show that a ' QUANTITY ' is PERCENT water . This sort of fake food encourages over - eating , and the high sugar and sodium content can make people develop a kind of addiction – a ' craving ' . That means more profit for ORG , but constipation , clogged arteries and heart attacks for many customers .

GETTING THE CHEMISTRY RIGHT

McDONALD 's stripy staff uniforms , flashy lighting , bright plastic décor , ' Happy Hats ' and muzak , are all part of the gimmicky dressing - up of low - quality food which has been designed down to the last detail to look and feel and taste exactly the same in any outlet anywhere in the world . To achieve this artificial conformity , ORG 's require that their ' fresh lettuce leaf ' , for example , is treated with CARDINAL different chemicals just to keep it the right colour at the right crispness for the right length of time . It might as well be a bit of plastic .

How do ORG deliberately exploit children ?

NEARLY all ORG 's advertising is aimed at children . Although the PERSON personality ' is not as popular as their market researchers expected ( probably because it is totally unoriginal ) , CARDINAL of young children now think of burgers and chips every time they see a clown with orange hair .

THE NORMALITY TRAP

No parent needs to be told how difficult it is to distract a child from insisting on a certain type of food or treat . Advertisements portraying ORG as a happy , circus - like place where burgers and chips are provided for everybody at TIME ( and TIME ) , traps children into thinking they are n't ' normal ' if they do n't go there too . Appetite , necessity and DATE above all – money , never enter into the ' innocent ' world of PERSON .

Few children are slow to spot the gaudy red and yellow standardised frontages in shopping centres and high streets throughout the country . ORG know exactly what kind of pressure this puts on people looking after children . It 's hard not to give in to this ' convenient ' way of keeping children ' happy ' , even if you have n't got much money and you try to avoid junk - food .

TOY FOOD

As if to compensate for the inadequacy of their products , ORG promote the consumption of meals as a ' fun event ' . This turns the act of eating into a performance , with the ' glamour ' of being in a ORG ( ' Just like it is in the ads ! ' ) reducing the food itself to the status of a prop .

Not a lot of children are interested in nutrition , and even if they were , all the gimmicks and routines with paper hats and straws and balloons hide the fact that the food they 're seduced into eating is at best mediocre , at worst poisonous – and their parents know it 's not even cheap .

PERSON 'S DIRTY SECRET

ONCE told the grim story about how hamburgers are made , children are far less ready to join in PERSON perverse antics . With the right prompting , a child 's imagination can easily turn a clown into a bogeyman ( a lot of children are very suspicious of clowns anyway ) . Children love a secret , and PERSON 's is especially disgusting .

In what way are ORG responsible for torture and murder ?

THE menu at ORG is based on meat . They sell CARDINAL of burgers DATE in CARDINAL countries throughout the world . This means the constant slaughter , day by day , of animals born and bred solely to be turned into ORG 's products .

Some of them – especially chickens and pigs – spend their lives in the entirely artificial conditions of huge factory farms , with no access to air or sunshine and no freedom of movement . Their deaths are bloody and barbaric .

MURDERING A BIG ORG

In the slaughterhouse , animals often struggle to escape . Cattle become frantic as they watch the animal before them in the killing - line being prodded , beaten , electrocuted and knifed .

A recent NORP government report criticised inefficient stunning methods which frequently result in animals having their throats cut while still fully conscious . ORG are responsible for the deaths of countless animals by this supposedly humane method .

We have the choice to eat meat or not . The CARDINAL animals killed for food in GPE DATE have no choice at all . It is often said that after visiting an abattoir , people become nauseous at the thought of eating flesh . How many of us would be prepared to work in a slaughterhouse and kill the animals we eat ?

WHAT 'S YOUR POISON ?

MEAT is responsible for PERCENT of all food - poisoning incidents , with chicken and minced meat ( as used in burgers ) being the worst offenders . When animals are slaughtered , meat can be contaminated with gut contents , faeces and urine , leading to bacterial infection . In an attempt to counteract infection in their animals , farmers routinely inject them with doses of antibiotics . These , in addition to growth - promoting hormone drugs and pesticide residues in their feed , build up in the animals ' tissues and can further damage the health of people on a meat - based diet .

What 's it like working for ORG ?

THERE must be a serious problem : even though PERCENT of ORG workers are part - time , the DATE staff turnover is PERCENT ( in the GPE it 's PERCENT ) . It 's not unusual for their restaurant workers to quit after CARDINAL or DATE . The reasons are not hard to find .

NO UNIONS ALLOWED

Workers in catering do badly in terms of pay and conditions . They are at work in DATE , doing long shifts in hot , smelly , noisy environments . Wages are low and chances of promotion minimal .

To improve this through ORG negotiation is very difficult : there is no union specifically for these workers , and the ones they could join show little interest in the problems of part - timers ( mostly women ) . A recent survey of workers in burger - restaurants found that PERCENT said they needed union help over pay and conditions . Another difficulty is that the ' kitchen trade ' has a high proportion of workers from ethnic minority groups who , with little chance of getting work elsewhere , are wary of being sacked – as many have been – for attempting union organisation .

ORG have a policy of preventing unionisation by getting rid of pro - union workers . So far this has succeeded everywhere in the world except GPE , and in GPE after a long struggle .

TRAINED TO SWEAT

It 's obvious that all large chain - stores and junk - food giants depend for their fat profits on the labour of young people . ORG is no exception : DATE of its workers are DATE . The production - line system deskills the work itself : anybody can grill a hamburger , and cleaning toilets or smiling at customers needs no training . So there is no need to employ chefs or qualified staff – just anybody prepared to work for low wages .

As there is no legally - enforced minimum wage in GPE , ORG can pay what they like , helping to depress wage levels in the catering trade still further . They say they are providing jobs for school - leavers and take them on regardless of sex or race . The truth is ORG are only interested in recruiting cheap labour DATE which always means that disadvantaged groups , women and black people especially , are even more exploited by industry than they are already . ”

The leaflet continued , on pages CARDINAL and DATE , with a number of proposals and suggestions for change , campaigning and activity , and information about GPE Greenpeace .

Because GPE Greenpeace was not an incorporated body , no legal action could be taken directly against it . DATE , GPE ORG hired CARDINAL private investigators from CARDINAL different firms to infiltrate the group with the aim of finding out who was responsible for writing , printing and distributing the leaflet and organising the anti - ORG campaign . The inquiry agents attended over DATE meetings of GPE Greenpeace , which were open to any member of the public who wished to attend , and other events such as “ fayres ” and public , fund - raising occasions . ORG subsequently relied on the evidence of some of these agents at trial to establish that the applicants had attended meetings and events and been closely involved with the organisation during the period when the leaflet was being produced and distributed .

On DATE ORG ( “ GPE ORG ” ) and ORG ( “ GPE ORG ” ) , together referred to herein as “ ORG 's ” , issued a writ against the applicants and CARDINAL others , claiming damages of up to GBP CARDINAL for libel caused by the alleged publication by the defendants of the leaflet . ORG withdrew proceedings against the CARDINAL other defendants , in exchange for their apology for the contents of the leaflet .

The applicants denied publication , denied that the words complained of had the meanings attributed to them by ORG and denied that all or some of the meanings were capable of being defamatory . Further , they contended , in the alternative , that the words were substantially true or else were fair comment on matters of fact .

The applicants applied for legal aid but were refused it on DATE , because legal aid was not available for defamation proceedings in GPE . They therefore represented themselves throughout the trial and appeal . CARDINAL was raised by donation to assist them ( for example , to pay for transcripts : see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and they received some help from barristers and solicitors acting pro bono : thus , their initial pleadings were drafted by lawyers , they were given some advice on an ad hoc basis , and they were represented during CARDINAL of the pre - trial hearings and on CARDINAL occasions during the trial , including the appeal to ORG against the trial judge 's grant of leave to ORG to amend the statement of claim ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They submitted , however , that they were severely hampered by lack of resources , not just in the way of legal advice and representation , but also when it came to administration , photocopying , note - taking , and the tracing , preparation and payment of the costs and expenses of expert and factual witnesses . Throughout the proceedings ORG were represented by leading and junior counsel , experienced in defamation law , and by CARDINAL or CARDINAL solicitors and other assistants .

In DATE GPE ORG produced a press release and leaflet for distribution to their customers about the case , entitled “ Why PERSON 's is going to Court ” . In DATE they produced a document called “ Libel Action – Background Briefing ” for distribution to the media and others . These documents included , inter alia , the allegation that the applicants had published a leaflet which they knew to be untrue , and the applicants counter - claimed for damages for libel from GPE ORG .

Before the start of the trial there were CARDINAL interim applications , involving various issues of law and fact , some lasting DATE . For example , on DATE the trial judge , Mr ORG ( “ FAC ” ) , ruled that the action should be tried by a judge alone rather than a judge and jury , because it would involve the prolonged examination of documents and expert witnesses on complicated scientific matters . This ruling was upheld by ORG on DATE , after a hearing at which the applicants were represented pro bono .

The trial took place before ORG DATE and CARDINAL DATE . It lasted for CARDINAL court DATE , of which CARDINAL were taken up with legal argument , and was the longest trial ( either civil or criminal ) in LANGUAGE legal history . Transcripts of the trial ran to CARDINAL pages ; there were CARDINAL pages of documentary evidence ; and , in addition to many written witness statements , CARDINAL witnesses gave oral evidence DATE for the applicants , CARDINAL for ORG . ORG gave evidence in person but Mr PERSON chose not to .

The applicants were unable to pay for DATE transcripts of the proceedings , which cost MONEY CARDINAL per day , or GBP CARDINAL if split between the CARDINAL parties . ORG paid the fee , and initially provided the applicants with free copies of the transcripts . However , ORG stopped doing this on DATE , because the applicants refused to undertake to use the transcripts only for the purposes of the trial , and not to publicise what had been said in court . The trial judge refused to order ORG to supply the transcripts in the absence of the applicants ' undertaking , and this ruling was upheld by ORG . Thereafter , the applicants , using donations from the public , purchased transcripts at reduced cost ( GBP DATE ) , DATE after the evidence had been given . They submit that , as a result , and without sufficient helpers to take notes in court , they were severely hampered in their ability to examine and cross - examine witnesses effectively .

During the trial , Mr PERSON faced an unconnected action brought against him by the GPE of GPE relating to possession of a property . Mr PERSON signed an affidavit ( “ the GPE affidavit ” ) in support of his application to have those proceedings stayed until the libel trial was over , in which he stated that the libel action had arisen “ from leaflets we had produced concerning , inter alia , nutrition of ORG food ... ” . ORG applied for this affidavit to be adduced as evidence in the libel trial as an admission against interest on publication by ORG , and ORG agreed to this request . Mr PERSON objected that the affidavit should have read “ allegedly produced ” but that there had been a mistake on the part of his solicitor . The solicitor confirmed in writing to the court that the second applicant had instructed her to correct the affidavit , but that she had not done so because the error had not been material to the GPE proceedings . The applicants submitted that they assumed that the solicitor 's letter would be admitted in evidence , and that ORG did not warn them that it was inadmissible until the closure of evidence , so that they did not realise they needed to adduce further evidence to explain the mistake . The applicants ' appeal to ORG against ORG admission of the affidavit was refused on DATE .

On DATE , ORG ruled on the meaning of the paragraph in the leaflet entitled “ What 's so unhealthy about ORG 's food ? ” , finding that this part of the leaflet bore the meaning

“ ... that ORG 's food is very unhealthy because it is high in fat , sugar , animal products and salt ( sodium ) , and low in fibre , vitamins and minerals , and because eating it may well make your diet high in fat , sugar , animal products and salt ( sodium ) , and low in fibre , vitamins and minerals , with the very real risk that you will suffer cancer of the breast or bowel or heart disease as a result ; that ORG know this but they do not make it clear ; that they still sell the food , and they deceive customers by claiming that their food is a useful and nutritious part of any diet ” .

The applicants appealed to ORG against this ruling , initially relying on CARDINAL grounds of appeal . However , DATE before the hearing on DATE before ORG , ORG gave notice on behalf of both applicants that they were withdrawing QUANTITY of the CARDINAL grounds , and now wished solely to raise the issue whether the trial judge had been wrong in determining a meaning which was more serious than that pleaded by ORG in their statement of claim . The applicants submitted that they withdrew the other grounds of appeal relating to the meaning of this part of the leaflet because lack of time and legal advice prevented them from fully pursuing them . They mistakenly believed that it would remain open to them to raise these matters again at a full appeal after the conclusion of the trial . ORG decided against the applicants on the remaining single ground , holding that the meaning given to this paragraph by the judge was less severe than that pleaded by ORG .

In the light of the GPE affidavit , ORG sought permission from the court to amend their statement of claim to allege that the applicants had been involved in the production of the leaflet and to allege publication dating back to DATE . The applicants objected that such an amendment so late in the trial would be unduly prejudicial . However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG J gave permission to ORG for the amendments ; the applicants were allowed to amend their defence accordingly .

Before the trial , the applicants had sought an order that ORG disclose the notes made by their enquiry agents ; ORG had responded that there were no notes . During the course of the trial , however , it emerged that the notes did exist . The applicants applied for disclosure , which was opposed by ORG on the ground that the notes were protected by legal professional privilege . On DATE Bell J ruled that the notes should be disclosed , but with those parts which did not relate to matters contained in the witness statements or oral evidence of the enquiry agents deleted .

When all the evidence had been adduced , ORG deliberated for DATE before delivering his substantive CARDINAL-page judgment on DATE .

On the basis , principally , of the GPE affidavit and the evidence of ORG enquiry agents , he found that the second applicant had participated in the production of the leaflet in DATE , at the start of GPE Greenpeace 's anti - ORG campaign , although the precise part he played could not be identified . Mr PERSON had also taken part in the leaflet 's distribution . Having assessed the evidence of a number of witnesses , including ORG herself , he found that her involvement had begun in DATE and took the form of participation in GPE Greenpeace 's activities , sharing its anti - ORG aims , including distribution of the leaflet . The judge found that the applicants were responsible for the publication of “ CARDINAL ” copies of the leaflet . It was not found that this publication had any impact on the sale of ORG 's products . He also found that ORG leaflet had been reprinted word for word in a leaflet produced in DATE and DATE by an organisation based in GPE called ORG had threatened libel proceedings against ORG , but had agreed a settlement after Veggies rewrote the section in the leaflet about the destruction of the rainforest and changed the heading “ In what way are ORG responsible for torture and murder ? ” to read “ In what way are ORG responsible for the slaughtering and butchering of animals ? ” .

Bell J summarised his findings as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the leaflet as follows :

“ In summary , comparing my findings with the defamatory messages in the leaflet , of which the Plaintiffs actually complained , it was and is untrue to say that either Plaintiff has been to blame for starvation in the Third World . It was and is untrue to say that they have bought vast tracts of land or any farming land in FAC , or that they have caused the eviction of small farmers or anyone else from their land .

It was and is untrue to say that either Plaintiff has been guilty of destruction of rainforest , thereby causing wanton damage to the environment .

It was and is untrue to say that either of the Plaintiffs have used lethal poisons to destroy vast areas or any areas of NORP rainforest , or that they have forced tribal people in the rainforest off their ancestral territories .

It was and is untrue to say that either Plaintiff has lied when it has claimed to have used recycled paper .

The charge that ORG 's food is very unhealthy because it is high in fat , sugar , animal products and salt ( sodium ) , and low in fibre , vitamins and minerals , and because eating it more than just occasionally may well make your diet high in fat , sugar , animal products and salt ( sodium ) , and low in fibre , vitamins and minerals , with the very real , that is to say serious or substantial risk that you will suffer cancer of the breast or bowel or heart disease as a result , and that ORG know this but they do not make it clear , is untrue . However , various of the First and Second Plaintiffs ' advertisements , promotions and booklets have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which ORG 's food , high in fat and saturated fat and animal products and sodium , and at CARDINAL time low in fibre , did not match .

It was true to say that the Plaintiffs exploit children by using them as more susceptible subjects of advertising , to pressurise their parents into going into ORG . Although it was true to say that they use gimmicks and promote the consumption of meals at ORG as a fun event , it was not true to say that they use the gimmicks to cover up the true quality of their food or that they promote them as a fun event when they know that the contents of their meals could poison the children who eat them .

Although some of the particular allegations made about the rearing and slaughter of animals are not true , it was true to say , overall , that the Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food .

It was and is untrue that the Plaintiffs sell meat products which , as they must know , expose their customers to a serious risk of food poisoning .

The charge that the Plaintiffs provide bad working conditions has not been justified , although some of the Plaintiffs ' working conditions are unsatisfactory . The charge that the Plaintiffs are only interested in recruiting cheap labour and that they exploit disadvantaged groups , women and black people especially as a result , has not been justified . It was true to say that the Second Plaintiff [ GPE ORG ] pays its workers low wages and thereby helps to depress wages for workers in the catering trade in GPE , but it has not been proved that the First Plaintiff [ GPE ORG ] pays its workers low wages . The overall sting of low wages for bad working conditions has not been justified .

It was and is untrue that the Plaintiffs have a policy of preventing unionisation by getting rid of pro - union workers . ”

As regards the applicants ' counter - claim , ORG found that ORG 's allegation that the applicants had lied in the leaflet had been unjustified , although they had been justified in alleging that the applicants had wrongly sought to deny responsibility for it . He held that the unjustified remarks had not been motivated by malice , but had been made in a situation of qualified privilege because ORG had been responding to vigorous attacks made on them in the leaflet , and he therefore entered judgment for ORG on the counter - claim also .

The judge awarded GPE ORG GBP CARDINAL damages and GPE ORG a further GBP CARDINAL . Mr PERSON was severally liable for the whole GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL , and Mr PERSON and ORG were to be jointly and severally liable for a total of GBP CARDINAL ( GBP CARDINAL in respect of each plaintiff ) . ORG did not ask for an order that the applicants pay their costs .

The applicants appealed to ORG on DATE . The hearing ( before Lord PERSON and DATE and Mr Justice PERSON ) began on DATE and lasted DATE , and on DATE the court delivered its CARDINAL-page judgment .

The applicants challenged a number of ORG decisions on general grounds of law , and contended as follows :

“ ( a ) [ ORG 's ] had no right to maintain an action for defamation because :

– [ GPE ORG ] is a ' multinational ' and [ GPE and GPE ORG ] are each a public corporation which has ( or should have ) no right at common law to bring an action for defamation on the public policy ground that in a free and NORP society such corporations must always be open to unfettered scrutiny and criticism , particularly on issues of public interest ;

– the right of corporations such as [ ORG 's ] to maintain an action for defamation is not ' clear and certain ' as the judge held ... The law is on the contrary uncertain , developing or incomplete ... Accordingly the judge should have considered and applied LAW ...

( b ) The judge was wrong to hold that [ ORG 's ] need [ not ] prove any particular financial loss or special damage provided that damage to its good will was likely .

( c ) The judge should have held that the burden was on [ ORG 's ] to prove that the matters complained of by them were false .

( d ) The judge was wrong to hold that , to establish a defence of justification , the [ applicants ] had to prove that the defamatory statements were true . The rule should be disapplied in the light of LAW ORG .

( e ) It should be a defence in LANGUAGE law to defamation proceedings that the defendant reasonably believed that the words complained of were true .

( f ) There should be a defence in LANGUAGE law of qualified privilege for a publication concerning issues of public importance and interest relating to public corporations such as [ ORG ] .

( g ) The judge should have held that the publication of the leaflet was on occasions of qualified privilege because it was a reasonable and legitimate response to an actual or perceived attack on the rights of others , in particular vulnerable sections of society who generally lack the means to defend themselves adequately ( e.g. children , young workers , animals and the environment ) which the [ applicants ] had a duty to make and the public an interest to hear . ”

ORG rejected these submissions .

On point ( a ) , it held that commercial corporations had a clear right under LANGUAGE law to sue for defamation , and that there was no principled basis upon which a line might be drawn between strong corporations which should , according to the applicants , be deprived of this right , and weaker corporations which might require protection from unjustified criticism .

In dismissing ground ( b ) , it held that , as with an individual plaintiff , there was no obligation on a company to show that it had suffered actual damage , since damage to a trading reputation might be as difficult to prove as damage to the reputation of an individual , and might not necessarily cause immediate or quantifiable loss . A corporate plaintiff which showed that it had a reputation within the jurisdiction and that the defamatory publication was apt to damage its goodwill thus had a complete cause of action capable of leading to a substantial award of damages .

On grounds ( c ) and ( d ) , the applicants ' submissions were contrary to clearly established LANGUAGE law , which stated that a publication shown by a plaintiff to be defamatory was presumed to be false until proved otherwise , and that it was for the defendants to prove the truth of statements presented as assertions of fact . Moreover , the court found some general force in ORG submission that in the instant case they had in fact largely accepted the burden of proving the falsity of the parts of the leaflet on which they had succeeded .

Dismissing grounds ( e ) to ( g ) , the court observed that a defence of qualified privilege did exist under LANGUAGE law , but only where ( i ) the publisher acted under a legal , moral or social duty to communicate the information ; ( ii ) the recipient of the information had an interest in receiving it ; and ( iii ) the nature , status and source of the material and the circumstances of the publication were such that the publication should be protected in the public interest in the absence of proof of malice . The court accepted that there was a public interest in receiving information about the activities of companies and that the duty to publish was not confined to the mainstream media but could also apply to members of campaign groups , such as ORG . However , to satisfy the test , the duty to publish had to override the requirement to verify the facts . Privilege was more likely to be extended to a publication that was balanced , properly researched , in measured tones and based on reputable sources . In the instant case , the leaflet “ did not demonstrate that care in preparation and research , or reference to sources of high authority or status , as would entitle its publishers to the protection of qualified privilege ” .

LANGUAGE law provided a proper balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation and was not inconsistent with LAW . Campaign groups could perform a valuable role in public life , but they should be able to moderate their publications so as to attract a defence of fair comment without detracting from any stimulus to public discussion which the publication might give . The relaxation of the law contended for would open the way for “ partisan publication of unrestrained and highly damaging untruths ” , and there was a pressing social need “ to protect particular corporate business reputations , upon which the well - being of numerous individuals may depend , from such publications ” .

The Court of Appeal further rejected the applicants ' contention that the appeal should be allowed on the basis that the action was an abuse of process or that the trial was conducted unfairly , observing as follows :

“ Litigants in person who bring or contest a ORG action are inevitably undertaking a strenuous and burdensome task . This action was complex and the legal advice available to the [ applicants ] was , because of lack of funds , small in extent . We accept that the work required of the [ applicants ] at trial was very considerable and had to be done in an environment which , at least initially , was unfamiliar to them .

As a starting - point , we can not however hold it to be an abuse of process in itself for plaintiffs with great resources to bring a complicated case against unrepresented defendants of slender means . Large corporations are entitled to bring court proceedings to assert or defend their legal rights just as individuals have the right to bring actions and defend them . ...

Moreover the proposition that the complexity of the case may be such that a judge ought to stop the trial on that ground can not be accepted . The rule of law requires that rights and duties under the law are determined . ...

As to the conduct of the trial , we note that the CARDINAL hearing days were spread over a period of DATE . The timetable had proper regard to the fact that the [ applicants ] were unrepresented and to their other difficulties . They were given considerable time to prepare their final submissions to which they understandably attached considerable importance and which were of great length . For the purpose of preparing closing submissions , the [ applicants ] had possession of a full transcript of the evidence given at the trial . The fact that , for a part of the trial , the [ applicants ] did not receive transcripts of evidence as soon as they were made does not render the trial unfair . Quite apart from the absence of an obligation to provide a transcript , there is no substantial evidence that the [ applicants ] were in the event prejudiced by delay in receipt of DATE transcripts during a part of the trial .

On the hearing of the appeal , we have been referred to many parts of the transcripts of evidence and submissions and have looked at other parts on our own initiative . On such references , we have invariably been impressed by the care , patience and fairness shown by the judge . He was well aware of the difficulties faced by the [ applicants ] as litigants in person and had full regard to them in his conduct of the trial . The [ applicants ] conducted their case forcefully and with persistence as they have in this ORG . Of course the judge listened to submissions from the very experienced leading counsel appearing for [ ORG 's ] but the judge applied his mind robustly and fairly to the issues raised . This emerges from the transcripts and from the judgment he subsequently handed down . The judge was not slow to criticise [ ORG 's ] in forthright terms when he thought their conduct deserved it . Moreover , it appears to us that the [ applicants ] were shown considerable latitude in the manner in which they presented their case and in particular in the extent to which they were often permitted to cross - examine witnesses at great length .

... [ We ] are quite unpersuaded that the appeal , or any part of it , should be allowed on the basis that the action was an abuse of the process of the ORG or that the trial was conducted unfairly . ”

The applicants also challenged a number of ORG findings about the content of the leaflet , and ORG found in their favour on several points , summarised as follows :

“ On the topic of nutrition , the allegation that eating ORG 's food would lead to a very real risk of cancer of the breast and of the bowel was not proved . On pay and conditions we have found that the defamatory allegations in the leaflet were comment .

In addition to the charges found to be true by the judge – the exploiting of children by advertising , the pretence by the respondents that their food had a positive nutritional benefit , and ORG responsibility for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughtering of some of the animals used for their products DATE the further allegation that , if CARDINAL eats enough ORG 's food , one 's diet may well become high in fat etc . , with the very real risk of heart disease , was justified . ... ”

The Court of Appeal therefore reduced the damages payable to ORG , so that ORG was now liable for a total of GBP QUANTITY and Mr PERSON for a total of GBP CARDINAL . It refused the applicants leave to appeal to ORG .

On DATE ORG of ORG also refused the applicants leave to appeal .

Under LANGUAGE law the object of a libel action is to vindicate the plaintiff 's reputation and to make reparation for the injury done by the wrongful publication of defamatory statements concerning him or her .

The plaintiff carries the burden of proving “ publication ” . As a matter of law ( per Bell J at p. CARDINAL of the judgment in the applicants ' case ) ,

“ any person who causes or procures or authorises or concurs in or approves the publication of a libel is as liable for its publication as a person who physically hands it or sends it off to another . It is not necessary to have written or printed the defamatory material . All those jointly concerned in the commission of a tort ( civil wrong ) are jointly and severally liable for it , and this applies to libel as it does to any other tort ” .

A defence of justification applies where the defamatory statement is substantially true . The burden is on the defendant to prove the truth of the statement on the balance of probabilities . It is no defence to a libel action to prove that the defendant acted in good faith , believing the statement to be true . NORP law does , however , recognise the defence of “ fair comment ” , if it can be established that the defamatory statement is comment , and not an assertion of fact , and is based on a substratum of facts , the truth of which the defendant must prove .

As a general principle , a trading or non - trading corporation is entitled to sue in libel to protect as much of its corporate reputation as is capable of being damaged by a defamatory statement . There are certain exceptions to this rule : local authorities , government - owned corporations and political parties , none of which can sue in defamation , because of the public interest that a democratically elected organisation , or a body controlled by such an organisation , should be open to uninhibited public criticism ( see ORG v. ORG [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL ; ORG v. ORG ( GPE ) and PERSON , unreported , DATE ; and PERSON and another v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL ) .

NORP Throughout the relevant time , the allocation of civil legal aid in GPE was governed by LAW DATE . Under Schedule CARDINAL , Part II , paragraph CARDINAL of that Act , “ [ p]roceedings wholly or partly in respect of defamation ” were excepted from the scope of the civil legal aid scheme .

The Access to Justice Act DATE ( “ the AJA DATE ” ) came into force on DATE , after the proceedings in the present case had concluded . It sets out the current statutory framework for legal aid in GPE and GPE , administered by ORG ( “ the Commission ” ) , and made a number of reforms , for example , introducing the possibility for conditional fee agreements . Under the AJA DATE the presumption remains that civil legal aid should not be granted in respect of claims in defamation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) of Schedule ) . However , the LAW contains a provision ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) to enable discretionary “ exceptional funding ” of cases which otherwise fall outside the scope of legal aid , allowing the Lord Chancellor , inter alia , to authorise the ORG to grant legal aid to an individual defamation litigant , following a request from the ORG .

The Lord Chancellor has issued guidance to the ORG as to the types of case he is likely to consider favourably , stressing that such cases are likely to be extremely unusual given that ORG has already decided in the AJA DATE that the types of case excepted from the legal aid scheme are of low priority . As well as financial eligibility for legal aid , the Commission must be satisfied either that “ there is a significant wider public interest ... in the resolution of the case and funded representation will contribute to it ” , or that the case “ is of overwhelming importance to the client ” , or that “ there is convincing evidence that there are other exceptional circumstances such that without public funding for representation it would be practically impossible for the client to bring or defend the proceedings , or the lack of public funding would lead to obvious unfairness in the proceedings ” .

The normal rule in civil proceedings in GPE and GPE , including defamation proceedings , is that the loser pays the reasonable costs of the winner . This rule applies whether either party is legally aided or not . An unsuccessful privately paying party would usually be ordered to pay the legal costs of a successful legally aided opponent . However , an unsuccessful legally aided party is usually protected from paying the costs of a successful privately paying party , because the costs order made against the loser will not usually be enforceable without further order of the court , which is likely to be granted only in the event of a major improvement in the financial circumstances of the legally aided party .

The Supreme Court Act DATE provides in section CARDINAL :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Where , on the application of any party to an action to be tried in FAC , the court is satisfied that there is in issue –

a claim in respect of libel , slander ...

the action shall be tried with a jury , unless the court is of opinion that the trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation which can not conveniently be made with a jury . ”

The measure of damages for defamation is the amount that would put the plaintiff in the position he or she would have been in had the wrongdoing not been committed . The plaintiff does not have to prove that he has suffered any actual pecuniary loss : it is for the jury ( or judge , if sitting alone ) to award a sum of damages sufficient to vindicate the plaintiff 's reputation and to compensate for injury to feelings .

The Civil Procedure Rules ( ORG , ORG . DATE , rule CARDINAL ) ) provide that leave of the court is required in order to enforce a judgment after a delay of DATE or more . Leave to issue execution is usually refused after the expiration of DATE from the date on which the judgment became enforceable ( see ORG plc v. PERSON [ DATE ] ORG , [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL , ORG , and ORG v. Rider [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG Bench Reports CARDINAL , [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL , ORG ) .