Datasets:

akkasi

/

ecthr_cases

like 0

5. The applicant was born in 1987. He is currently serving a prison sentence. 6. On 10 October 2010 the applicant, who was serving his sentence in Tartu Prison, took a walk together with other detainees. When he entered the accommodation block, two prison guards searched him in the stairwell of the building. According to the applicant he was requested to lower his trousers and underpants twice and lift his sexual organ. A guard felt his underpants to find out whether any tobacco products had been hidden therein. According to the applicant he was in the sight of other detainees, since the door to the stairwell where the search was carried out had a transparent window. Another door leading from the stairwell to a corridor of the accommodation block also had a transparent window and detainees or female prison officers could have seen him through it or entered the stairwell at any time. 7. The applicant claimed from the prison administration 25,000 kroons (EEK) (corresponding to approximately 1,600 euros (EUR)) for the non-pecuniary damages he had allegedly sustained. He named three of the detainees who had been behind him when he had entered the building and had been searched. 8. The prison administration rejected the applicant’s claim. Relying on the statements of one of the prison guards involved, the administration found that the search had been conducted in private and not in the sight of other detainees. According to the prison guard’s written statements, the detainees had entered the stairwell one by one. One guard had searched their jackets and the other one had searched the detainees. In the event that they suspected a detainee, they had closed the door in order to create a private space and the detainee in question had been requested to lower his trousers. Only the detainee to be searched and two guards had been in the stairwell. 9. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Tartu Administrative Court. He reiterated his claim, named three detainees who had seen his search and included written statements from two of them. 10. By a judgment of 21 September 2011 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim. It found reliable the statements of the prison guard, according to whom the applicant’s privacy had been respected. 11. The applicant appealed to the Tartu Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal hearing he submitted that the windows of the doors to the stairwell had measured 1 m by 30 cm and that some days after his complaint to the Administrative Court they had been covered by metal sheets to prevent other detainees from seeing the searches. 12. By a judgment of 16 March 2012 the Tartu Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It established that the search had lasted for a few minutes at most and noted that the applicant had not been sure whether any other detainees had been in the stairwell. He had been unable to explain from where exactly the detainees named by him had seen his search. The Court of Appeal concluded that his privacy had not been violated. It further found that in order to effectively manage a large number of detainees, the prison also had to have the possibility of carrying out a body search of a detainee, when necessary, in a location other than a private room designated for that purpose. In order to conduct such a search it was sufficient that the authorities had a suspicion that a detainee re-entering the building after a walk had hidden cigarettes – which were prohibited in prison – in his underwear. 13. By a judgment of 17 October 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It upheld the Court of Appeal’s finding that the applicant’s privacy had not been infringed and his dignity had not been diminished. One of the three judges delivered a separate opinion. He considered that it was not decisive whether the third persons had in fact seen the detainee’s body search. It could not be presumed that a person who was being searched was able to establish at the same time whether the search had been seen, what exactly had been seen and by whom. When a body search was carried out in a situation and location where it was not guaranteed that third persons would not see the person’s nudity, the person concerned was bound to feel that his privacy had not been respected and that other persons might have seen the procedure being performed. Such a situation damaged the person’s dignity and could cause feelings of insecurity, anguish and degradation. 14. According to information provided by the Government, the applicant had three reprimands on record at the time of the search in question, including for unauthorised possession of a cigarette. From the date of the events at issue until mid-2013, twenty further disciplinary punishments had been imposed on him, primarily for violations related to the possession of unauthorised items, mainly cigarettes.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently being held in Rappahannock Prison in Stafford, Virginia (United States). 6. On 14 September 2001 an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant by an investigating judge of the Brussels Regional Court. A search of his home had led to the discovery of false passports, automatic weapons and ammunition, as well as chemical formulae that could be used for making explosives and a detailed plan of the United States Embassy in Paris. 7. Following a simultaneous search of a Brussels café, where the applicant had been a regular customer, drawing on information provided by another suspect, who had also been arrested, the police discovered 59 litres of acetone and 96 kilograms of sulphur powder. Under the arrest warrant which was subsequently issued, the applicant was accused of acts of criminal conspiracy, destruction by explosion, possession of combat weapons and belonging to a private militia. 8. The applicant admitted the offences as charged and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment by the Brussels Regional Court on 30 September 2003 for attempting to blow up the Kleine-Brogel Belgian army base, forgery, and instigating a criminal conspiracy to attack persons and property. The court’s judgment included the following finding: “[the defendant] attempted to commit one of the most serious crimes since Belgian independence; in spite of the lapse of time since his arrest, he has never shown any remorse, the danger which he poses has remained intact and his case presents no mitigating circumstances.” 9. In a judgment of 9 June 2004 the Brussels Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s ten-year prison sentence for a range of offences, including: “ - attempting to blow up the Kleine-Brogel Belgian army base, with the added circumstance that the perpetrator must have presumed that there were one or more persons present at the time of the explosion ..., - holding a position of command in a conspiracy formed to perpetrate serious crimes liable to life imprisonment and, in the present case, to carry out a terrorist attack ..., - receiving from a foreign organisation funds intended for conducting, in Belgium, an activity liable to jeopardise national security ..., - being in unlawful possession of a combat weapon ..., - setting up, and assisting or participating in, a private militia or other organisation of private individuals for the purpose of using force ...” 10. On 26 January 2005 the applicant was sentenced in absentia by a Tunisian military court to ten years’ imprisonment for belonging to a terrorist organisation abroad in peacetime. On 29 June 2009 the Permanent Military Court in Tunis issued a warrant for the applicant to be brought before it, for which an application for enforcement was submitted to the Belgian authorities by diplomatic note of 10 September 2009. 11. The principal prison sentence imposed on the applicant in Belgium was completed on 13 September 2011. Two subsequent subsidiary prison sentences of six and three months respectively were imposed in 2007 and enforced immediately. The applicant completed these sentences on 23 June 2012. 12. On 25 August 2005, meanwhile, the applicant had submitted an asylum application in Belgium, which the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons dismissed in a decision of 10 April 2009. This decision refused the applicant refugee status and subsidiary protection on the grounds that he had committed offences contrary to the aims and principles of the United Nations within the meaning of Article 1 f) c of the Geneva Convention. That decision was upheld by the Aliens Appeals Board in a judgment of 18 May 2009. 13. By a diplomatic note of 8 April 2008 the US authorities transmitted to the Belgian authorities a request for extradition of the applicant under the Extradition Agreement concluded between the Kingdom of Belgium and the United States of America on 27 April 1987. The reasons for the request were the indictment issued by the District Court of the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) against the applicant on 16 November 2007, comprising the following charges: “A. Conspiracy to kill United States nationals outside of the United States, in violation of the following provisions: 18 U.S.C. § 2332 (b) (2) and 1111 (a) 14. The extradition request continued as follows: “A warrant for the arrest of Mr Nizar Trabelsi was issued on 16 November 2007 by order of ... judge .... The underlying facts of the charges indicate that in mid-2000 or earlier, while in Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, and in Afghanistan, Nizar TRABELSI knowingly entered into an agreement with al Qaeda associates, including Osama bin Laden, to provide material support and resources, to unlawfully kill United States nationals in targeted facilities in Western Europe, and to use a large-scale explosive device (a weapon of mass destruction) to destroy property in Western Europe used by the United States and/or a department or agency of the United States.” 15. According to the documents in support of the extradition request, notably the applicable extracts from criminal law (Title 18 of the United States Code, U.S.C.) transmitted by the US authorities, these offences carried the following penalties: “A. 18 U.S.C. § 2332 (b) (2) and 1111 (a): a maximum term of life imprisonment, or a combined fine and prison sentence. 16. On 4 June 2008 the Federal Attorney transmitted to the chambre du conseil of the Nivelles Regional Court a request for enforcement of the arrest warrant issued on 16 November 2007 against the applicant. In his request the Federal Attorney pointed out that the maximum sentences for the offences underlying the request for extradition were fifteen and ten years respectively. 17. By a diplomatic note of 12 November 2008 the US authorities made the following assurances concerning the applicant to the Belgian authorities: “The Government of the United States assures the Government of Belgium that, pursuant to his extradition, Nizar Trabelsi will not be prosecuted before a military commission, as enabled by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The Government of the United States further assures the Government of Belgium that upon extradition, Trabelsi will not be detained or incarcerated in any facility other than a civilian facility in the United States.” 18. By an order of 19 November 2008, the chambre du conseil of the Nivelles Regional Court acceded to the Federal Attorney’s request and declared the arrest warrant issued by the US District Court enforceable. However, the order added the following stipulation: “It emerges from the examination of the documents enclosed with the arrest warrant issued for the purposes of extradition ... that the ‘overt acts’ listed by the US authorities in support of the first charge include several which correspond very precisely to the acts committed in Belgian territory which justify the [applicant’s] conviction in Belgium. ... Therefore, by virtue of the ne bis in idem principle, the arrest warrant issued for the purposes of extradition on 16 November 2007 by the competent judicial authority of the United States of America cannot be declared enforceable in respect of ‘overt acts’ nos. 23, 24, 25, 26 set out in paragraph 10 of the first charge, which are deemed repeated in support of the other charges.” 19. Having examined an appeal lodged by the applicant, the Indictments Division of the Brussels Court of Appeal delivered a judgment on 19 February 2009 upholding the aforementioned order and declared the warrant enforceable. Having noted that the extradition concerned acts (committed outside Belgium) other than those for which the applicant had been prosecuted and convicted in Belgium, the Court of Appeal argued that: “There are no serious grounds for believing that the request for extradition was submitted for the purposes of prosecuting or punishing Trabelsi Nizar for considerations of race, religion, nationality or political opinion or that this individual’s situation is liable to be worsened for any of these reasons. ... Nor is there any serious reason to believe that if Trabelsi Nizar were to be extradited he would be subjected to a flagrant denial of justice, acts of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment; there is no reason to suppose that the United States of America will not meticulously comply with all the provisions, including Articles 7.2 and 7.3, of the Extradition Agreement concluded with Belgium, and every reason to believe that Trabelsi Nizar will be detained in a civilian facility and tried by the ordinary courts, in accordance with conventional procedure. ...” 20. On 24 April 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. He relied on the risk of treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and the risk of a flagrant denial of justice. He contended that the Court of Appeal had not assessed the consequences of his extradition to the United States in the light of the general situation in that country or his own specific circumstances, and argued that the Court of Appeal should have adopted the same line of reasoning as the Court in the case of Saadi v. Italy [GC] (no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008). He also complained that the Court of Appeal had not addressed the potential problem under Article 3 of sentencing a person to an irreducible life sentence. Lastly, he complained of a violation of the ne bis in idem principle. 21. By a judgment of 24 June 2009 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It ruled that the Court of Appeal had provided adequate reasons and legal justification for its decision, considering “ - that the requesting State is currently conducting a thorough review of its anti-terrorist policy, stepping up its action against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, and is on the verge of suspending the special courts and abolishing the unlimited detention without trial of persons captured in the context of international conflict; - that under the terms of the formal guarantees provided in support of the extradition request, the appellant will be tried by an ordinary civilian court in accordance with the normal procedure in force in the requesting State, enjoying all the rights and remedies available under the national judicial system; - that the appellant is not liable to a life sentence for the offences for which his extradition has been requested and that the penalties which they carry can be commuted into other penalties with possibilities for release on parole; - that because the evidence relied upon by the appellant lacks any specific aspect affecting his own personal situation, which would have made the risks he alleges more credible, it does not substantiate any serious concern that he could be exposed to a flagrant denial of justice or acts of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment. ...” 22. In a letter of 11 November 2009 sent to the Belgian authorities at the behest of the Federal Attorney responsible for the extradition request, the US Department of Justice supplied the following additional information: “The statutory maximum sentence for a conviction of each of the first two of these offenses is life imprisonment and the statutory maximum sentence for the latter two offenses is 15 years. In addition, the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which are the voluntary guidelines that judges may choose to follow in sentencing defendants, call for a life sentence for each of the first two of these offenses. A life sentence is not mandatory and the court has the discretion to issue a sentence less than life. In issuing a sentence, the court may consider the gravity of the offense and whether any lives were lost or property was damaged. In this instance, Trabelsi did not succeed in carrying out his plans to kill United States nationals and to use weapons of mass destruction. Thus, the court in issuing a sentence, in its discretion, may consider that Trabelsi was not successful in carrying out his plans. The court also may consider any mitigating factors, such as whether the defendant acknowledges responsibility for his actions. If the court, in its discretion, sentences Trabelsi to a punishment of less than life, i.e. a term of years, Trabelsi’s sentence could be reduced by up to 15% for good behaviour while incarcerated. This type of sentence reduction is only possible, however, if the original sentence is to a term of years, however long, rather than a life sentence. Therefore, if Trabelsi were sentenced to a term of 20, 30, or even 50 years, then he could be eligible for a sentence reduction of up to 15% of his original sentence based on his good behaviour while incarcerated. If, however, Trabelsi is sentenced to life, he would not be eligible for any reduction in his sentence. Finally, Trabelsi can apply for a Presidential pardon or sentence commutation. (A pardon would eliminate the conviction; a commutation would be an adjustment to the sentence.) However, this is only a theoretical possibility in Trabelsi’s case. We are not aware of any terrorism defendant ever having successfully applied for a Presidential pardon or sentence commutation.” 23. Once the US indictment was declared operative, the proceedings relating to the response to the extradition request were commenced. 24. On 4 February 2010 the Federal Attorney forwarded his written opinion to the Brussels Court of Appeal inviting it, in the light of the Court’s case-law, particularly Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC] (no. 21906/04, ECHR 2008), to issue a positive opinion on the applicant’s extradition. He pointed out that in the case of the first two charges, the applicant was liable to a life sentence, while in the case of the other two charges he was liable to a fifteen-year prison sentence. 25. In a letter of 29 March 2010 to the Federal Department of Justice the applicant took note of the fact that at the hearing on 24 March 2010 the Federal Attorney had acknowledged a mistake in his observations in the enforcement request proceedings concerning the sentence to which the applicant might be liable following his extradition to the United States (see paragraph 16 above). 26. On 10 June 2010 the Indictments Division of the Court of Appeal issued a favourable opinion on the applicant’s extradition, specifying a number of conditions: “ - extradition may only be granted: i. on condition that the death penalty is not imposed on N. Trabelsi or, if the United States cannot guarantee this condition, on condition that the death penalty is not enforced; ii. on condition that any life sentence is accompanied by the possibility of commutation of sentence, even if the conviction is based on terrorist acts; - in the event of a request for N. Trabelsi’s re-extradition to a third country, such as Tunisia, the United States must request the agreement of Belgium should Tunisia send the US Government any future request for extradition after N. Trabelsi has been handed over to them. If the US fails to accept these conditions the extradition must be refused.” b) Ministerial decree granting extradition 27. By a diplomatic note of 10 August 2010 the US authorities confirmed that the applicant was not liable to the death penalty and assured the Belgian authorities that he would not be extradited to any third country without the agreement of the Belgian Government. The US authorities reiterated that the maximum life prison sentence was not mandatory and that even if all the constituent elements of the criminal offences in question were secured and proved, the court had the discretion to impose a lighter sentence. The note specified that US legislation provided for several means of reducing life sentences: “Regarding the question of commutation of a life sentence, the United States wishes to make it clear, in the first instance, that if Trabelsi were convicted, a life sentence is not mandatory; the court has the discretion to impose a sentence less than life. Also, a defendant has a statutory right to appeal the conviction and sentence, including a life sentence, both directly, and collaterally through a habeas corpus petition. In addition, there are certain statutory bases for reduction of an already-imposed sentence, including where the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of a third party (Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) and Title 18 United States Code, Section 3582(c)(1)(B)), or for compelling humanitarian reasons such as the terminal illness of the prisoner (Title 18, United States Code, Section 3582(c)(lXA)(i)). In addition to these measures, the defendant may request that his sentence be reduced as an exercise of executive clemency by the President of the United States. The President’s power under Article H, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, “to grant reprieves and pardons” includes the authority to commute (reduce) a sentence of imprisonment, including a life sentence. There are established regulations and procedures governing the application process for executive clemency, and the Office of the Pardon Attorney has been established in the Department of Justice to review all applications for executive clemency and prepare recommendations for the President on those applications. The U.S. Constitution gives the President absolute discretion to grant executive clemency to a defendant. We note that while such discretion has been exercised sparingly, such relief has, on occasion, been granted for serious offenses implicating national security. For example, in 1999, President Clinton commuted the sentences of 13 members of the FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist organization responsible for numerous bombings in the 1970s and early 1980s, who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, bomb making, sedition and other offenses.” 28. On 23 November 2011 the Minister for Justice adopted a ministerial decree granting the applicant’s extradition to the US Government. Having noted that the applicant would in no case be liable to the death penalty, the decree examined each of the other guarantees provided. 29. On the matter of possible life imprisonment, the ministerial decree read as follows: “Under US Federal criminal law the maximum penalty laid down in respect of the charges – the offences under A and B – precludes early release and release on parole. Life sentences as provided for in these two provisions of the US Criminal Code are therefore, from the legal and factual angles, in principle served for the whole of the person’s life. ... In diplomatic note no. 21 of 10 August 2010 from the United States Embassy, the US authorities provided a guarantee that (even) if an irreducible life sentence were handed down it would be possible to obtain a pardon from the US President. This right is set out in Article 2, II of the US Constitution. Furthermore, Presidential pardons have in fact been granted on several occasions in the past, including the recent past, to persons sentenced by the US courts, particularly at the Federal level. ... Even if we view it in its historical context, the FALN case shows that in cases likely to fall under the current legislation on terrorism in force since 11 September 2001, which cases must objectively be seen as much more serious than those of which the person sought is suspected and which are therefore liable to lead to severer penalties, Presidential pardons can indeed be granted. Even though some individuals have since 2001 been given irreducible life sentences ... for terrorism or acts linked to terrorism, such cases cannot be compared to the Trabelsi case in terms of their content. All those who have been sentenced to life imprisonment in the US without early release or release on parole were charged, prosecuted and finally convicted for active involvement in terrorist attacks which had caused deaths and/or injuries and considerable material damage, for example the attacks on the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salaam (Tanzania) on 7 August 1998. ... Those offences were manifestly incomparable in extent and nature with those attributed to the person whose extradition has been requested. In the aforementioned cases persons, sometimes enormous numbers of people, in addition to US nationals, suffered substantial physical and material damage. The person sought in the present case, however, is being prosecuted for having planned and prepared a terrorist attack which was never carried out. He did not succeed, in cooperation with others, in causing human injuries or even material damage. It is therefore manifestly plausible that the offences as charged are not such that the maximum applicable sentence laid down in the US Criminal Code, that is to say an irreducible life sentence, could be called for or imposed. A recent survey by the Human Rights First NGO shows that of the 214 persons prosecuted since 11 September 2001 for terrorist offences linked to al-Qaeda or other Islamist groups or for offences connected with such terrorist offences, 195 have been convicted. Each case involved prosecutions or convictions instigated by Federal attorneys and courts. 151 of the convicted persons were sentenced to imprisonment, while twenty were released on licence or given prison terms corresponding to the period of custody already served. The average length of prison sentences handed down was 8.4 years. Only 11 of those convicted were sentenced to life imprisonment. The report also points out that the proceedings complied with the right to a fair trial (“Human Rights First, In pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts – 2009 Update and Recent Developments”, 2009, 68 pp.). The statistics show that, objectively, the risk of being sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in cases of prosecution for terrorist offences is considerably lower than is commonly thought.” 30. In connection with the applicant’s possible re-extradition to Tunisia, the ministerial decree continued as follows: “By diplomatic note no. 21 of 10 August 2010 from the US Embassy the US authorities clearly indicated that if the Tunisian authorities applied to the United States for extradition, it would be turned down. ... Given the decision to refuse extradition to the Tunisian Republic, in view of the fact that re-extradition necessitates the agreement of the State which authorised the initial extradition, no re-extradition to the Tunisian Republic is possible. Since the Belgian authority refused extradition to the Tunisian Republic, if Tunisia were to transmit to the US a request for extradition in the future the US would also refuse it, and no extradition by the United States to the Tunisian Republic is possible.” 31. Lastly, the ministerial decision analysed the application of the ne bis in idem principle as follows: “Under the Agreement (the Extradition Agreement of 27 April 1987), Belgium and the United States of America ... have mutually undertaken to refuse extradition if the person sought has been acquitted in the requested State or has been convicted in the same State for the same offence as that for which extradition is being requested. Ratification ... incorporated this agreement into the Belgian and US legal systems. In other words it is not the acts but the legal classification of the acts, namely the offences, which must be identical. ... The facts forming the basis of the offences in question correspond to ‘overt acts’ which individually or together function as factual elements supporting the charges. The double jeopardy principle does not exclude the possibility of using or not using these elements. In the present case the offences for which the person sought was finally convicted by the Brussels Court of Appeal on 9 June 2004 do not correspond to the offences listed in charges A to D in the arrest warrant forming the basis for the US extradition request. The constituent elements of the respective US and Belgian offences, their scope and the place(s) and time(s) of their commission do not match up. ... Under US Federal criminal law an ‘overt act’ is a (factual) element, an act, a behaviour or a transaction which in itself may not necessarily be classified as an offence... An ‘overt act’ is merely a piece of supporting evidence which in itself or in conjunction with other overt acts may help constitute the offence or offences for which the person is being prosecuted, that is to say conspiracy, for instance to kill US nationals (see charge A). ... Although each of ‘overt acts’ nos. 24, 25 and 26 could be classified as an offence, these acts nonetheless do not constitute offences for which the extradition has been requested.” 32. Article 2 of the decree stated that “extradition will take place after the person sought has complied with the requirements of the Belgian courts”. 33. On the same day, under another ministerial decree, the Minister for Justice refused the Tunisian authorities’ request for the applicant’s extradition (see paragraph 10 above). c) Application for judicial review before the Conseil d’Etat 34. On 6 February 2012, relying on violations of Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, the applicant lodged an application with the Conseil d’Etat for judicial review of the ministerial decree granting his extradition to the United States of America. 35. At the Conseil d’Etat hearing on 19 September 2013 the applicant relied on the Court’s judgment in Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, 9 July 2013). He deduced from this judgment that the Court had now adopted a position requiring preventive review of whether a life prison sentence was reducible or not before the prisoner began his sentence, and therefore that the distinction drawn in the Babar Ahmad and Others v. United Kingdom judgment, (nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09, 10 April 2012) depending on whether the person subject to extradition had been convicted or not was no longer relevant. 36. In a judgment of 23 September 2013 the Conseil d’Etat dismissed the application for judicial review. As to the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and the risk of an irreducible life sentence, the Conseil d’Etat reasoned as follows: “Even supposing that the applicant is sentenced by the US courts to life imprisonment, it should be noted that in its Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom judgment of 9 July 2013 [the Court] ruled that: ‘a life sentence does not become irreducible by the mere fact that in practice it may be served in full’, that ‘no issue arises under Article 3 if a life sentence is de jure and de facto reducible ...’ and that ‘where national law affords the possibility of review of a life sentence with a view to its commutation, remission, termination or the conditional release of the prisoner, this will be sufficient to satisfy Article 3’. In the present case, as in that of Babar Ahmad and Others v. United Kingdom which led to [the Court’s judgment] of 10 April 2012, the applicant has not been sentenced by a US court to life imprisonment, and has still less begun serving such a sentence. As in the aforementioned case, therefore, the applicant does not show that in the event of a life sentence, the question will arise whether there is any legitimate penological justification for continuing his imprisonment. Moreover, in his most recent submissions the applicant acknowledges that a possible life sentence imposed on him would be reducible de jure. US law allows him either to request a review or apply for a Presidential pardon or commutation of sentence, and the applicant does not contend that this power of executive clemency or sentence commutation is accompanied by restrictions comparable to those in issue in the [Court’s] aforementioned judgment of 9 July 2013. Although the applicant challenges the assertion that such a sentence is reducible de facto, the explanations provided to the opposing party by the US authorities do show that the US President has already used his power to commute sentences. Therefore, the legal remedy available to the applicant in the event of a life prison sentence is not excluded in practice. Furthermore, the applicant’s contention that since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack it has been inconceivable for the US President to grant a pardon to or commute the sentence of a person convicted of terrorism has not been substantiated by any reliable information, nor can it be in view of the relatively short period of time, as compared with a life sentence, which has elapsed since the said attack and any criminal sentences subsequently imposed. As in Babar Ahmad ..., therefore, it has not been established that the US authorities would, when appropriate, refuse to implement the available sentence-reducing mechanisms where there was no legitimate penological justification for continuing the applicant’s imprisonment. Any possible life sentence imposed on the applicant would therefore also be reducible de facto. Consequently, it is unnecessary to determine whether the opposing party was wrong to consider that the applicant would not necessarily be sentenced to life imprisonment, because, even if he were sentenced to such a prison term, this penalty would not constitute a breach of Article 3 [of the Convention]”. 37. As to the complaint under Article 5 of the Extradition Agreement between the Kingdom of Belgium and the United States of America, Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention and Article 14 § 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Conseil d’Etat held that: “The US authorities request the applicant’s extradition on four charges, namely: 1) Conspiracy to kill United States nationals outside of the United States; 2) Conspiracy and attempt to use of weapons of mass destruction; 3) Conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation; 4) Providing material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation, in violation of the following provisions. Again according to the US authorities, in order to commit these offences as charged the applicant and four accomplices carried out a series of ‘overt acts’, including those for which extradition is being granted to the US authorities presented as follows: [a list of 28 charges follows]. In Belgium the charges (‘in the Brussels judicial district and, on related charges, elsewhere in the Kingdom’) against the applicant are as follows: [a list of 13 charges follows]. Comparing all the ‘overt acts’ for which extradition has been granted to the US authorities with all the Belgian charges valid ‘in the Brussels judicial district and ... elsewhere in the Kingdom’, it will be noted that the former have no territorial link with the Kingdom of Belgium, constituting a set of acts which serve as the constituent elements of the four charges presented by the US authorities. It emerges from the case file that the applicant is wanted by the US authorities for a number of offences in respect of which he has not been ‘found guilty, convicted or acquitted in the requested State’ and that the ‘overt acts’ constitute so many elements to be used by the US judicial authorities to establish whether the applicant is guilty or innocent of the four charges brought against him.” 38. On 6 December 2011, the date of notification of the ministerial decrees relating to the requests for extradition (see paragraphs 28 and 33), the applicant lodged a request with the Court for the indication of an interim measure pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court with a view to suspending his extradition. 39. On the same day the Court acceded to the applicant’s request and decided to indicate to the Government, in the interests of the parties and of the proper conduct of proceedings before it, that it should not extradite the applicant to the United States of America. 40. On 20 December 2011, arguing that the interim measure had been indicated prematurely because the applicant had not yet been placed in custody pending extradition and that such a measure would create a situation detrimental to the proper administration of justice, the Belgian Government requested that the measure be lifted. 41. On 11 January 2012, the Court, having re-examined the application in the light of the information supplied by the parties, decided, on the basis of the said information, to refuse to lift the interim measure. 42. On 21 May 2012 the Government submitted a second request for the lifting of the interim measure. 43. In reply, the Court pointed out, in a letter of 25 May 2012, that the request to lift the measure and the application would be re-examined once the judgment delivered on 10 April 2012 by the Court in Babar Ahmad and Others v. United Kingdom, cited above, had become final. 44. In a letter of 25 June 2012 the Court informed the parties that the examination of the request to lift the interim measure had been postponed indefinitely in view of the request for referral to the Grand Chamber of the cases Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom (no. 66069/09) and Harkins and Edwards v. United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07). 45. On 3 August 2012 the Court informed the parties that it had been decided to refer the aforementioned Vinter case to the Grand Chamber and that the question of the request to lift the interim measure would be re-examined when a decision had been taken on the request for referral of the aforementioned case of Babar Ahmad and Others to the Grand Chamber. 46. The application was communicated to the respondent Government on 27 November 2012. 47. In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application the Government requested, for the third time, the immediate lifting of the interim measure. 48. In a letter of 7 January 2013 the Court replied that the Government would be informed in due course of the decision taken by the Court on the interim measure. 49. On 15 January 2013 it was decided to maintain the interim measure for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. 50. In a letter of 18 June 2013 in reply to a fourth request from the Government to lift the interim measure, the Court stated that the interim measure had been maintained and would be applied until the end of the proceedings before it. 51. On 10 July 2013 the Court informed the parties that examination of the case had been adjourned in view of the imminent delivery of the judgment of the Conseil d’Etat and of the Grand Chamber judgment in Vinter and Others [GC] (nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, 9 July 2013). 52. In reply to a question from the Government on the deadline for dealing with the case, the Court informed them on 25 September 2013 that the examination of the case would begin at the end of October or the beginning of November. 53. On 18 October 2013 the Court informed the parties that the chamber constituted to examine the case was intending to relinquish the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 30 of the Convention. 54. By letter of 31 October 2013 the applicant expressed his agreement to such relinquishment. The Government, on the other hand, indicated, by letter of 8 November 2013, that they opposed relinquishment. 55. On 24 June 2012, having served the sentences imposed on him (see paragraph 11 above), the applicant was taken into custody pending extradition in pursuance of section 3 of the Extradition Act of 15 March 1874. 56. On 7 June 2012 the applicant lodged a first application for release with the Nivelles Regional Court. By an order of 12 June 2012 the chambre du conseil dismissed the application. The order was upheld by the Indictments Division of the Brussels Court of Appeal on 28 June 2012. 57. Subsequently, having meanwhile been transferred first to Bruges Prison and then to Hasselt Prison, the applicant lodged a second application for release on 13 August 2012 with the Hasselt Regional Court. On 24 August 2012 the chambre du conseil allowed his application. On appeal from the public prosecutor, by judgment of 6 September 2012, the Indictments Division of Antwerp Court of Appeal set aside this decision and dismissed the application. 58. On 3 December 2012 the applicant lodged a third application for release. By an order of 14 December 2012 the chambre du conseil of the Hasselt Regional Court declared the application unfounded. The applicant appealed to the Indictments Division of Antwerp Court of Appeal, which upheld the aforementioned decision by judgment of 10 January 2013. 59. In January 2013, having meanwhile been transferred to Mons Prison, the applicant lodged a fourth application for release, which was declared unfounded by the chambre du conseil of the Mons Regional Court on 4 February 2013, and then by the Indictments Division of the Mons Court of Appeal on 21 February 2013. 60. On 23 August 2013, having meanwhile been transferred to Ittre Prison, the applicant lodged a fifth application for release. This application was dismissed by the chambre du conseil of Nivelles Regional Court on 28 August 2013 and then by the Indictments Division of the Brussels Court of Appeal on 12 September 2013. 61. Meanwhile, on 5 September 2013, the applicant had left Ittre Prison for Bruges Prison, having obtained a date for his wedding to a Belgian national with whom he had had two children. 62. On 3 October 2013 the applicant was informed that he was being transferred from Bruges Prison to Ittre Prison. In fact he was being taken to Melsbroek military airport, where Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents were waiting for him. At 11.30 a.m. he was extradited to the United States. 63. The Minister for Justice issued a public statement announcing the applicant’s departure at 1.30 p.m. 64. At 3 p.m. the applicant’s lawyer made a highly urgent ex parte application to the President of Brussels Regional Court. The decision, which was given at 6.30 p.m., stated that the Belgian State was required to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court, and ordered “prohibition or suspension of the applicant’s extradition, as far as this might be possible”, on pain of a fine of EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros). The Court has not been informed of any appeal against this order. 65. In the United States the applicant was immediately placed in custody. On 7 October 2013, assisted by an officially appointed lawyer, he was brought before the District Court of the District of Columbia to hear the charges against him. 66. The applicant is currently being held in the Rappahannock regional prison in Stafford (Virginia). On 1 November 2013 a letter from the prison administration to the Belgian authorities stated that the applicant was subject to the same conditions of detention as all other prisoners. 67. According to an email sent on 6 November 2013 by the applicant’s US lawyer to his representative before the Court, the applicant was allowed to have postal contact with the outside world, but all correspondence would be translated and read in advance by the US Government. He was also allowed to have telephone contact with some members of his family provided that an interpreter was available. Close relatives could visit him subject to obtaining a US entry visa. 68. The applicant was visited by his lawyer, who, in an email sent to a member of his family on 7 December 2013, said that he had been placed in an isolated cell. She expressed concern about his mental state.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Gadyach. 6. On 25 February 2004 the applicant was arrested in Gadyach by the Kharkiv Chervonozavodskiy District Police Drug Squad (Відділ по боротьбі із незаконним обігом наркотиків Червонозаводського районного відділу Харківського міського управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України – “the Drug Squad”) and taken to Kharkiv. The applicant stated that he had been ill-treated by the police and that upon his arrest a police officer had hit him in the left eye. 7. On 19 July 2004 the Gadyachskiy District Court convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of weapons and drug trafficking and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years. On the same date the applicant was released. 8. On 27 November 2004 the applicant was diagnosed with a cataract and a subatrophy of the left eyeball. The only recommendation after the diagnosis was to avoid hypothermia. According to the applicant, he planned to have eye surgery. No medical evidence was submitted in this respect. 9. On 19 April 2005 the applicant was again arrested in Gadyach after selling drugs to D. and taken to Kharkiv by the Drug Squad. The applicant stated that he “had been beaten by the police after his arrest for three days simply because he had wanted to have a lawyer”. He further stated that “pending investigation” a gas mask had been put on his face with lit cigarettes inserted into the air valve. 10. On 20 April 2005 Kharkiv Hospital no. 11 issued a certificate stating that the applicant had head and left shoulder injuries, a haematoma on the left ear and had possibly suffered a closed craniocerebral injury. However, the certificate stated that the applicant could be detained, so long as he was under the supervision of a neurosurgeon. 11. On 22 April 2005 criminal proceedings on drug trafficking charges were instituted against the applicant and it was decided to arrest him. 12. On 29 April 2005 the Kharkiv Chervonozavodskiy District Court (“the Chervonozavodskiy Court”) remanded the applicant in custody. 13. On 5 May 2005 Kharkiv Hospital no. 11 issued a certificate stating that the applicant was suffering from the after-effects of a head injury but that he could be detained. He was also examined by an ophthalmologist and diagnosed with an old optic subatrophy in the left eye. 14. On 6 May 2005 the applicant was placed in Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 27 (“the SIZO”). It was noted in his medical file that on 25 February 2004 he had suffered an eye injury and that on 19 April 2005 he had been suffering from a head injury. He was diagnosed with a cataract and with a subatrophy of the left eye. 15. On 3 June 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office ordered the Head of the Kharkiv Regional Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine (начальник Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Харківській області – “the regional head”) to look into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. 16. On 21 July 2005 the regional head informed the applicant that the police officers involved had not broken any laws. 17. On 5 October 2005 the applicant asked the Chervonozavodskiy Court to obtain medical evidence from his SIZO medical file which would confirm the infliction of injuries on him. 18. On 25 October 2005 the applicant complained to the regional head that: “... on 19 April 2005 police officers, M., S., Sh., K. and G., accompanied by two witnesses, arrived in Gadyach. Again on 20 April 2005 the same diagnosis [was established]: closed craniocerebral injury, facial fractures, nasal fracture, haematomas on the body, arms, legs and left ear, scratches.” 19. On 19 April 2006 the Chervonozavodskiy Court, examining the applicant’s case on the merits, ordered the Chervonozavodskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (Прокуратура Червонозаводського району м Харкова) to look into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. The court noted that, according to the applicant, he had been beaten in Kharkiv by police officers M., S., Sh. and G., and that he had later been examined in Hospitals nos. 4 and 11. 20. On 27 June 2006 the Chervonozavodskiy District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. It was noted that the decision to arrest the applicant had been adopted on 22 April 2005 and that the applicant had been questioned on this date. He had refused to have a lawyer present. The applicant had never complained of any ill-treatment. The police officers had stated that they had never ill-treated the applicant. On the same date the Prosecutor’s Office informed the Chervonozavodskiy Court of the decision taken. 21. On 11 August 2006 the Chervonozavodskiy Court examined the applicant’s case. The applicant pleaded guilty to some of the charges and stated that he was a drug addict, that the confiscated drugs had been for his personal use only and that he had confessed to drug trafficking after being subject to physical pressure by the police. The court convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of weapons and drug trafficking and sentenced him to six and a half years’ imprisonment. 22. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 7 August 2007 he amended his appeal stating, inter alia, that on 12 May 2005 he had asked for the severity of his injuries to be recorded and that he had not been able to appeal against the decision of 27 June 2006 as he had not received a copy of it. 23. On 10 January 2008 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 11 August 2006 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 24. On 20 November 2008 the Chervonozavodskiy Court again convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of weapons and drug trafficking and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant pleaded guilty. He did not appeal against the decision. 25. On 23 May 2009 the applicant was transferred to Poltava Correctional Colony no. 64. On 25 May 2010 he was released. 26. Between 17 and 28 January 2011 he was admitted to a hospital. He was diagnosed with hypertension, chronic cholecystitis, a cyst of left kidney and optic supatrophy in the left eye. 27. According to the Government, while in detention, the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist on numerous occasions, namely on 17 and 22 August 2005 (on the latter date it was noted that the applicant’s state has improved), 23 September 2005, 23 November 2005, 16 and 19 October 2006 (it was noted that the applicant needed no maintenance treatment for his optic subatrophy), 16 July 2009 and 14 March 2010. On no occasion had any deterioration of the applicant’s state of health been established. When the applicant had complained of pain in his left eye, in particular, on 17 August 2005, 23 September 2005 and 23 November 2005, he had been prescribed treatment. 28. The applicant submitted that he had been taken to Kharkiv Ophthalmology Clinic but did not provide any further information in this respect. 29. On 16 July 2009 the applicant refused to be hospitalised in the ophthalmology department of the prison hospital at Correctional Colony no. 81. 30. According to the Government, the applicant had had the following consultations with other specialists: (i) with a surgeon on 18 May 2006 (complaints about pain in the right leg, the applicant was prescribed medication) and 4 September 2007; (ii) with a neuropathologist on 5 May 2005 and 13 June 2009; (iii) with a psychiatrist on 18 May 2005 and 4 September 2007; and (iv) with a general physician on 30 June 2005 (the applicant complained about a pain in the left eye and general weakness and was advised to see an ophthalmologist), 13 July 2005 (the applicant complained about pain in his back and was prescribed painkillers), 16 September 2005 (the applicant was issued a referral to a civil hospital in order to decide whether he is able to work and whether he falls into any disability group), 16 August 2006, 13 September 2006 and 4 September 2007. 31. On 18 December 2005, 6 June 2006, 13 September 2006, 12 October 2006, 9 January 2007, 27 October 2008, 12 January 2009 and 13 June 2009 the applicant underwent periodic medical screening. 32. On 10 May 2006 the applicant received treatment for a shoulder injury. 33. On 27 February 2010 the applicant complained of hypertension. He was offered an examination and, if necessary, treatment in the prison hospital, which he refused.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the village of Tatariv, which forms part of Yaremche, a resort town in the Ivano-Frankivsk Region of Ukraine. 7. The applicant owns a house and an adjacent plot of land in Tatariv. The village of Tatariv is situated in a mountainous region and because of its location holds the status of mountainous residential area. It is also known as a resort for “green tourism” in Carpathy region. It is situated on the banks of Prut river. 8. On 10 February 2000 Tatariv Village Council (“Tatariv Council”), having considered four sites on which to construct a new cemetery, chose the land previously occupied by garages belonging to a company called Vorokhtya Lisokombinat (“the VL plot”) as it was not occupied, it was located in the village and the cemetery could be constructed at low cost. 9. The VL plot is located near the applicant’s house (for further details see paragraphs 14 and 33 below), in which he was residing with his family at the time. Two rivers flow at a distance of 30 and 70 metres from the VL plot. Drinking water for Tatariv comes from wells fed by groundwater; there is no centralised water supply system and the wells are not protected. 10. On 24 May 2000 the All-Ukrainian Bureau of Environmental Investigations informed the Chairman of Yaremche Town Council (“Yaremche Council”) that the construction of the cemetery on the VL plot might cause contamination of the river and the wells situated on adjacent plots of land by ptomaine carried by the groundwater flow. 11. The cemetery was opened for use by the Yaremche Council in August 2000. It is being administered by the Yaremche Council. 12. On 6 February 2001 the Yaremche Environmental Health Inspectorate (санітарно-епідеміологічна станція) concluded that the cemetery should not have been constructed on the VL plot in view of its proximity to residential buildings and the risk of contamination of the surrounding environment by ptomaine. 13. On 20 August 2002 the Regional Environmental Health Inspectorate of the Ministry of Health refused to approve the construction plan. In particular, it stated that the cemetery should not be situated in the proposed area as its distance from private housing did not comply with the norms and standards of a health protection zone (санітарно-захисна зона). 14. On 30 August 2002 and 20 January 2003 the Marzeyev Institute of Hygiene and Medical Ecology, part of the Academy of Medical Sciences, informed the applicant and Yaremche Council that another location would have to be found for the cemetery. It was of the view that constructing the cemetery on the VL plot would breach environmental health laws and regulations and would worsen the living conditions of the residents of adjacent houses. In particular, it would be located less than 300 metres from the nearest residential buildings, which are 38 metres away from the edge of the cemetery (which would not allow for the establishment of the necessary health protection zone). It could lead to contamination of the groundwater reservoir used by the residents of adjacent households for drinking water and of the nearby rivers with by-products of human decomposition. It further stated that a health protection zone was also intended to reduce psychological pressure on the residents of adjacent houses. 15. The applicant alleges that from 2002 to the present moment he has been receiving treatment for hypertension and various cardio-related diseases. He supplied in this respect sick leave certificates and medical certificates from 2002 and 2006, relating to him and his wife. He has also provided the Court with death certificates for two of his neighbours Mr R.G. and Mr D.B., who also resided in the vicinity of the prohibited cemetery and died at the age of 68 and 43, respectively. 16. On 17 September 2002 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that it could not intervene in respect of unauthorised burials taking place on the VL plot: the issue was in the competence of local authorities, including the Yaremche Council, which was responsible for management and maintenance of the cemetery. 17. On 22 April 2003 the Executive Board of Yaremche Council informed the Regional State Administration that Tatariv Council was considering resettling the applicant. He had twice been invited to discuss a proposal for resettlement of his family to another part of the village but no response had been received. 18. On 5 May 2003 the Regional Urban Development and Architecture Department (“the Urban Development Department”) informed Yaremche and Tatariv Councils that the area near the applicant’s house was not suitable for construction of the cemetery as it did not respect a 300-metre wide health protection zone that would protect the residential buildings and a 50-metre wide water protection zone to protect the Prutets river. 19. On 18 May 2003 the Tatariv Council resolved inter alia that the relevant local authorities were prepared to consider the purchase of a house or apartment for the applicant, or to pay him compensation if he refused to reside in the cemetery’s vicinity. 20. On 21 April 2004 the issue of the site of the cemetery was examined by officials from the Urban Development Department, the Municipal Housing Department, the environmental health inspectorate and the Land Management Department. They recommended to the Chairman of Tatariv Council that another plot on the outskirts of the village of “Ventarivka” be used as a cemetery. 21. On 22 June 2005 the Regional State Administration informed the applicant that the only way to resolve the issue was to resettle him. They asked him to agree to such a resettlement. They also confirmed that Yaremche Council was willing either to buy a house for the applicant or to provide him with an equivalent plot of land and the funds necessary to construct another house 22. On 18 July 2005 the Chairman of Yaremche Council invited the applicant to inform the authorities whether his family was willing to resettle and, if so, on what conditions. 23. In reply, the applicant sought more information on the proposal, such as, details of the specific land plot, house and facilities to be provided. 24. By letter of 27 July 2005 the Chairman of Yaremche Council, in reply to the applicant’s request for specific proposals, invited the applicant to discuss the proposal in person with a view to a possible compromise. 25. On 15 August 2005 the Chairman of Tatariv Council asked the Ukrainian State Urban Planning Institute (Дніпромісто – “the Institute”) to develop proposals for the site of a cemetery in the village. 26. On 21 December 2005 the Institute informed the applicant that it was not within its competence to decide matters such as the question of where to situate the cemetery. It also mentioned that the local development plan for Tatariv proposed a plot in the Chertizh area for the cemetery. However, this was subject to approval by the local council and environmental health inspectorate. It also informed the applicant that no letter of 15 August 2005 with proposals to investigate possible site of the cemetery (see paragraph 25 above) had been received from Tatariv Council. 27. By letter of 6 March 2006 addressed to the applicant and the Chairman of Tatariv Council, the Urban Development Department stated that it had repeatedly proposed to Tatariv Council that it use an area called Venterivka for the site of the cemetery. However, the council had not taken up that suggestion for unspecified reasons. It also informed the applicant that it was within Tatariv Council’s competence to decide on the allocation of a plot of land for a cemetery. 28. On several occasions between August 2006 and June 2008 the applicant and members of his family, who resided together, asked Tatariv Council to grant each of them a plot of land on which to construct a house because they felt that living in the cemetery’s vicinity was intolerable. Tatariv Council rejected the requests because of a lack of available plots of land. 29. According to the results of examinations of drinking water from the applicant’s well conducted by the Yaremche Environmental Health Inspectorate dated 21 August 2008 and 7 July 2009, the toxicological, chemical and organoleptic indices of the water complied with national standards (no E. coli index examination had been made). A conclusion was reached that water could be used for household needs. 30. On 23 August 2008 and 6 July 2009 the Yaremche Environmental Health Inspectorate carried out a bacteriological analysis of the water from the same well. It established, contrary to the results of the examinations held on 21 August 2008 and 7 July 2009 (see paragraph 29 above) that the E. coli bacteria index in the water gave a reading of 2,380, whereas the normal reading was 10 (see paragraph 72 below), and concluded that the water could not be used for household needs. It also recommended disinfecting the water supply. The cause of water pollution was not established and would require an additional expert report. 31. On 14 December 2009 in response to a request from the Government, the Yaremche Environmental Health Inspectorate concluded that the reading obtained from the bacteriological analysis which had indicated water contamination did not have any connection to the location of the cemetery, but could also have been caused by other sources. 32. On 15 December 2009 the Regional Environmental Health Inspectorate informed the applicant that the reasons for the bacterial contamination of the water supply could be established on the basis of a hydrogeological assessment as to whether there were any connections between the drinking water reservoirs and possible sources of contamination. It further stated that according to an analysis of water taken from different parts of the village, the E. coli index exceeded the allowed reading established by law, which provided that drinking water should not contain any index of E. coli or be less than 1 in that index per 100 cm3 (see paragraph 72 in relation to the domestic drinking water standards), nevertheless the E. coli index ranged from 23 to 2,380. 33. The applicant’s house and well are some 38 metres from the nearest boundary of the cemetery. 34. By letters of 10, 15 and 16 December 2009 from the Tarariv Council, Yaremche Executive Committee and the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional State Administration, the authorities informed the Government’s agent that the applicant had failed to manifest any interest in being resettled. 35. On 10 August 2000 the Verkhovyna Court, following the applicant’s claim in proceedings against the Tatariv Council, held that the Council’s decision to situate the cemetery on the VL plot had been unlawful. 36. At the end of August 2000 residents of Tatariv carried out the first burial at the cemetery. 37. On 1 December 2000 the Yaremche Court, in another set of new proceedings, found that Tatariv Council had failed to follow the proper procedure for the allocation of a plot of land for a cemetery, namely obtaining an environmental health assessment, and ordered it to prohibit burials on the VL plot. 38. On 24 December 2000 the residents of Tatariv were informed of the court’s decision to stop the use of the VL plot as a cemetery. Nevertheless, burials continued at the site. 39. On 29 December 2000 Tatariv Council prohibited burials on the VL plot. On 2 February 2001 the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated enforcement proceedings in the case, considering that the judgment had been fully complied with by the Tatariv Council. 40. On 2 March 2001 Tatariv Council again decided that the VL plot could be used for the new village cemetery. On 26 March 2001 the applicant lodged a new claim against that decision with the Yaremche Court. 41. In the meantime, on 22 August 2001 the Regional Environmental Health Inspectorate informed the relevant judge of the Yaremche Court, which assumed jurisdiction over the claims lodged on 26 March 2001 (see paragraph 40 above), that the site of the cemetery did not comply with national environmental health laws and regulations on the planning and construction of urban areas. In particular, the location did not comply with the requirement of a health protection zone between the cemetery and the nearest residential buildings. 42. On 16 October 2001 the Yaremche Court declared Tatariv Council’s decision of 2 March 2001 unlawful. On 17 April 2002 the Supreme Court upheld that judgment. 43. On 25 December 2001 Tatariv Council cancelled its decision of 2 March 2001 in pursuance of the judgment of 16 October 2001. 44. On 3 July 2003 Tatariv Council approved a new development plan for the village. The plan again authorised the use of the VL plot as a cemetery. 45. On 22 July 2003 the applicant again instituted proceedings against Tatariv Council, seeking to have the approval of the new development plan for the village, insofar as it concerned the location of the cemetery, declared unlawful. He also sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage, court fees and legal expenses. 46. On 22 August 2003 the Verkhovyna Court ordered Tatariv Council to inform the residents of the village that burials at the unauthorised cemetery near the applicant’s house were prohibited. 47. By that time, up to seventy burials had been carried out on the VL plot. The distance between the applicant’s house and some of the graves was less than 120 metres. 48. The Chairman of Tatariv Council argued before the court that there was no other suitable area for a cemetery in the village. She further submitted that the applicant’s allegation of possible contamination of the water supply was unfounded, as the groundwater flowed away from his property. 49. On 26 December 2003 the Verkhovyna Court allowed the applicant’s claims and held that the new construction plan was unlawful as regards the location of the cemetery. It found that the VL plot was not suitable for use as a cemetery. In particular, constructing the cemetery on the VL plot had breached the environmental health laws and regulations requiring the establishment of: (a) a health protection zone 300 metres wide separating residential areas from a risk factor; and (b) a water protection zone 50 metres wide separating water supply sources from a risk factor. It observed that those distances could not be reduced. It ordered Tatariv Council to close the cemetery and to pay the applicant 25,000 hryvnias (UAH)[1] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and UAH 609.45[2] for costs and expenses. 50. On 28 May 2004 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) upheld the judgment of 26 December 2003 in part. In particular, it decided that no award of non-pecuniary damage should be made to the applicant, and it reduced the award for costs and expenses to UAH 151[3]. 51. On 9 October 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 28 May 2004. 52. On 18 June 2004 the Verkhovyna Court issued two writs of execution ordering Tatariv Council to adopt a decision declaring the new development plan unlawful and to close the cemetery. 53. On 7 July 2004 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in the case. 54. Between July 2004 and February 2005 the State Bailiffs’ Service imposed fines on Tatariv Council several times for its refusal to comply with the judgment of 26 December 2003. 55. On 3 March 2005 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings, stating that it had been impossible to enforce the decision without the involvement of Tatariv Council, whose members had failed to adopt a decision in pursuance of the judgment of 26 December 2003. 56. In March 2005 the applicant requested the Verkhovyna Court to change the terms of the enforcement of the judgment of 26 December 2003. In particular, he sought to have the Chairman of Tatariv Council ordered to execute the judgment. 57. On 17 October 2005 the Verkhovyna Court rejected the applicant’s request. It held that the Chairman had acted only as a representative of Tatariv Council, the respondent in the case. The Chairman had not been involved as a party to the proceedings. On 6 December 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of 17 October 2005. 58. In August 2005 the applicant challenged the alleged omissions and inactivity of the Chairman of Tatariv Council as regards the enforcement of the judgment of 26 December 2003 before the Verkhovyna Court. 59. On 8 November 2005 the Verkhovyna Court found no fault on the part of the Chairman and rejected the applicant’s claim. On 12 January 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 60. On 16 August 2006 Tatariv Council again refused to declare the new development plan unlawful and to close the cemetery. 61. On 28 August 2006 the State Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings were not subject to renewal. 62. The applicant also unsuccessfully sought to institute criminal proceedings against the Chairman of Tatariv Council for her alleged failure to enforce the judgment of 26 December 2003. 63. On 7 May 2002 the Yaremche Court, acting upon the applicant’s request, refused to institute criminal proceedings against a private individual, K.M., for using the VL plot for a burial. On 16 July 2002 and 21 January 2003 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision. 64. On 3 October 2002 the Yaremche Court in two separate judgments rejected as unsubstantiated damages claims brought by the applicant and his neighbour, D.B., against K.M. and F.G. (private individuals) concerning the unlawful use of the land near their houses for burial purposes. It found no breach of applicant’s rights by the respondents. 65. The judgments were upheld on 24 December 2002 (in two separate rulings) by the Court of Appeal and subsequently on 15 September 2005 and 15 February 2006 by the Supreme Court.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant is a German national who was born in 1948 and lives in Ulrichstein. 6. On 1 August 2001 the Civil Partnership Act (Gesetz über die eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft) entered into force and introduced civil unions for same-sex couples. 7. On 5 October 2001 the applicant entered into a civil partnership with Mr Peter, né V. 8. On 22 June 2002 Mr Peter, né V., died. 9. In September 2002 the applicant applied for a survivor’s pension to the German Pension Fund (Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte), a public-law corporation. 10. On 19 November 2002 the German Pension Fund rejected the applicant’s claim and on 28 February 2003 it dismissed the administrative appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision. 11. On 19 March 2003 the applicant applied to the Fulda Social Court for judicial review. He argued that the term “widow or widower” in Article 46 §§ 1 and 2 of the Social Security Code, Book VI (Sozialgesetzbuch Nr. VI) should be construed as encompassing the surviving partner in a civil partnership. 12. On 26 November 2004 the Fulda Social Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. According to the court the surviving partner in a civil partnership could not be called a “widower” in the generally accepted sense of the term. Furthermore, the applicant’s civil partnership had not lasted longer than a year, which would have led to statutory exclusion from the benefit even for married couples. 13. During the appeal proceedings the respondent acknowledged the applicant’s claim to a survivor’s pension as of 1 January 2005, when the relevant amendments to the Civil Partnership Act became effective. 14. The remaining leapfrog appeal on points of law (Sprungrevision) was dismissed on 13 December 2005 by the Federal Social Court. The court pointed out that the respondent had partly acknowledged the applicant’s claim, so that the appeal concerned only the period from July 2002 until December 2004. 15. On 20 January 2006 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint (no. 1 BvR 170/06) with the Federal Constitutional Court. 16. On 7 July 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court delivered its judgment in a case (no. 1 BvR 1164/07, hereinafter “the 2007 case”) which had been brought in 2007 concerning the pension rights of a surviving partner in a civil partnership. It found that denying a partner in a civil union the right to a survivor’s pension from the civil servants’ pension scheme, when the legislature had already amended Article 46 §§ 1 and 2 of the Social Security Code, Book VI, in respect of the general pension scheme, violated the principle of non-discrimination as set down in Article 3 of the Basic Law. 17. On 1 December 2009 the applicant pointed to the above-mentioned judgment and requested a decision to the same effect. 18. On 11 June 2010 a three-judge panel of the Federal Constitutional Court decided not to review the applicant’s constitutional complaint. In its reasoning the panel explained that the complaint did not raise a pressing constitutional question as the relevant provision of the social security legislation had meanwhile been amended. Even assuming that the legislative provision concerned had violated the Constitution, the Federal Constitutional Court could not have afforded redress as the legislature could not be required to amend a provision that had already become void. 19. On 13 July 2010 the applicant was served with a copy of the decision. 20. On 7 December 2011 the Government informed the Court that in response to the pilot judgment in Rumpf v. Germany (no. 46344/06, 2 September 2010) an Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations (Gesetz über den Rechtsschutz bei überlangen Gerichtsverfahren und strafrechtlichen Ermittlungsverfahren) had been published in the Federal Law Gazette and had entered into force on 3 December 2011. 21. In December 2011 the Court informed the applicant of the enactment of the new domestic remedy and drew his attention to the transitional provision of that Act. Referring to the Brusco v. Italy case ((dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001‑IX), the Court invited the applicant to inform it whether he intended to make use of the new remedy within the time-limit set by the transitional provision in question. 22. The applicant informed the Court that he intended to file a complaint under the new domestic provisions. 23. On 6 February 2012 the applicant filed a complaint under the new Act, claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. He complained that constitutional court proceedings that lasted four years, six months and one day were excessively long, even taking the position and function of the Federal Constitutional Court into account. He pointed out that his case could not be considered a particularly difficult one. 24. In the course of the proceedings the judge rapporteur for the constitutional complaint submitted a statement explaining that when he took office and became judge rapporteur for this complaint on 1 October 2007 it had already been agreed between his predecessor and judge B., who was judge rapporteur for the 2007 case (compare paragraph 16, above), that the handling of the applicant’s complaint should be postponed until the 2007 case had been determined. Subsequently, it became clear that the 2007 case did not pose a problem of retroactivity and therefore did not affect the outcome of the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The judge rapporteur conceded that the applicant’s submissions were sufficiently substantiated for his constitutional complaint to indeed have been dealt with earlier on the basis of the actual reasoning given. However, the judge maintained that it had been in the applicant’s best interest to wait for the court’s ruling in the 2007 case. 25. The applicant replied that the judge rapporteur’s statement demonstrated that his constitutional complaint had not been given any attention whatsoever in the first year after it was lodged. It would have been obvious even from a cursory examination of the constitutional complaints that his complaint concerned the retroactive application of a legislative amendment. Therefore, any proper comparison of his case with the 2007 case would have easily shown that the two cases were not interdependent. 26. On 1 October 2012 the complaints panel of the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint under section 97a of the Federal Constitutional Court Act. Citing Gast and Popp v. Germany (no. 29357/95, ECHR 2000‑II), as well as Klein v. Germany (no. 33379/96, 27 July 2000), the Federal Constitutional Court noted that a chronic backlog of cases in the constitutional courts could not justify the excessive length of proceedings. However, when assessing whether the duration of proceedings was excessive, the Federal Constitutional Court had to consider its special function and position. Unlike the ordinary courts, the capacity and structure of a Constitutional Court were laid down in the Constitution and it served further purposes beyond the administration of individual justice. The scope for adaptation and for the acceleration of proceedings was therefore limited. Furthermore, decisions and judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court had binding inter omnes legal effect and for this reason had to be drafted with the utmost diligence. The court further explained that it was in the nature of constitutional court proceedings that chronological case management was of subordinate importance. Concerning the applicant’s case, the court noted that the actual duration of the proceedings – four and a half years – was unusually long, but not excessive. For the purposes of its examination the Federal Constitutional Court noted that three phases could be distinguished: (a) the phase of over one year between the lodging of the constitutional complaint and the decision to await the outcome of the 2007 case; (b) the phase of two years until a decision had been given in the 2007 case; and (c) the phase of eleven months until the constitutional complaint at issue had been determined. A new judge rapporteur had stepped in at the end of his predecessor’s term of office and his predecessor had had to finish cases of higher priority than that of the applicant. The court maintained that the twelve-month wait in accordance with section 97b §1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act had not been excessive considering that the Federal Constitutional Court had opted to rule on a similar case concerning the pension rights of surviving partners in a civil union (the 2007 case) before the applicant’s case. The court pointed out that, although in hindsight the present case could have been decided without reference to the “pilot case”, the two cases shared sufficient similarities to justify the decision of the former judge rapporteur. Nothing indicated that the decision to postpone the applicant’s case pending a decision on the 2007 case had been based on arbitrary considerations. The court noted that the applicant had never claimed that the sum of money at issue was of extraordinary financial importance to him. In conclusion, the Federal Constitutional Court argued that after the decision in the 2007 case the applicant’s constitutional complaint had been determined in due time, without any delay.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1929 and lived in Budakalász. 7. He had a joint title to a plot of land in the value of 4.59 “gold crowns” (aranykorona). The land was, from an unspecified date on, in the possession of, and used by, a Socialist “collective farm”. Following the adoption of Act no. II of 1993 on Land Settlement and Land Distribution Committees, the Pest County Land Registry adopted a plan on the division of such properties. That decision was subsequently upheld by the Bács-Kiskun and Pest County Office of Compensation. 8. On 15 November 1999 a plot of arable land of 979 square metres, situated in the village of Budakalász, was designated by the Pest County Land Registry for the purpose of privatisation, under lot no. 3305. This measure was approved by the Regional Office for Restitution and Compensation Affairs. On 15 November 1999 the applicant was granted ownership of the plot by the Regional Office of Agriculture. His title to the land was registered on 28 August 2000. 9. However, he could not enter into possession, because the plot which he had been granted was apparently occupied and being used by the owners of the neighbouring plots. 10. The applicant brought a trespass claim before the District Notary, asserting that his use had been unjustifiably interfered with. Following the dismissal of his request, he sought judicial review of the decision, bringing a civil action before the Budapest II/III District Court against the neighbours, seeking protection of his possession rights. 11. While this case was pending, the respondents initiated the correction of the land register maps. In the ‘remapping’ proceedings, the District Land Registry observed that plot no. 3305 did not exist in reality. On appeal, the County Land Registry confirmed this finding, designating a new plot for the applicant, under no. 3305/1, on 21 June 2006. This plot was nonetheless smaller than that originally allocated to the applicant, and was apparently not suitable for farming. Quite independently of the present dispute, on 16 December 2005 a new, digitally compiled land register was put in place by the Budakalász authorities, with the apparent intention of eliminating the existing inaccuracies. 12. The applicant’s civil action was stayed for the duration of the remapping proceedings. After the adoption of the County Land Registry’s final decision, the District Court dismissed the action on 15 December 2006, observing that the respondents had not used the applicant’s land unlawfully, as the plot of land registered under plot no. 3305 did not exist in reality. The applicant appealed. 13. The appeal proceedings appear to have been subsequently suspended since the applicant sought judicial review of the remapping decision. In the course of these administrative court proceedings, it was confirmed by an expert land surveyor that the applicant had originally been granted a plot which had been registered with topographic and editing errors, and that these had been duly corrected in the remapping proceedings. Therefore, the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on 13 March 2008. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 28 April 2009. 14. Since in the remapping proceedings the location of the land belonging to the applicant eventually became indisputable and it turned out that this plot was not possessed by any of the respondents, the applicant withdrew his appeal against the first-instance judgment of 15 December 2006. 15. As a result of the above proceedings, the applicant could finally obtain possession of the land in question ten years after having acquired it, that is, sometime in 2009. 16. On 28 October 2009 the applicant lodged an official liability action against the District and the County Land Registries. His action was dismissed by the Buda Surroundings High Court on 13 March 2012. The court found that the applicant’s damage had been caused by his own conduct since he had initiated a number of futile proceedings before various authorities. 17. The applicant appealed; however, the appellate proceedings were suspended on account of his death on 16 March 2012, with a view to the successor’s joining the case. It appears that the proceedings are still pending, that is, remain suspended.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Timișoara. 6. In February 2011 a large-scale criminal investigation was initiated against ninety‑four police and customs officers for corruption‑related offences. 7. According to the charge, between October 2010 and January 2011 a criminal group was formed at the Moravița and Foeni border checkpoints, which were controlled by the Timiș County Border Police Inspectorate (“the PCTF”). Its members were involved in acts of corruption and the smuggling of cigarettes from Serbia. 8. The applicant was a customs officer at the Moravița border checkpoint at that time, and was considered to be part of the criminal group by the investigation authority. On 3 February 2011 the National Anti‑Corruption Prosecution Service (“the NAP”) initiated a criminal investigation against him on suspicion of being a member of a criminal group and bribery. On 28 March 2011 prosecutors extended the investigation to take into account the offence of repeated smuggling. 9. On 7 February 2011 the prosecutor issued orders to appear on behalf of the applicant and the other ninety-three police and customs officers. The orders contained reasons justifying the measure. After referring in extenso to the impugned facts and the nature of the offences allegedly committed, the prosecutor emphasised that it was in the best interests of the investigation to take all the suspects to the NAP headquarters simultaneously. 10. In the framework of the criminal investigation, on 8 February 2011 police officers from the NAP carried out a search at the applicant’s home. The search started at 6 a.m. and lasted about three hours. The applicant benefitted from the legal assistance of a lawyer of his own choosing during the search. Related searches were carried out at the residences of the other officers under suspicion. 11. At about 9 a.m. the police officers informed the applicant that on 7 February 2011 the prosecuting authorities had issued an order to appear before the NAP on his behalf. 12. At 9.15 a.m. he was taken to the headquarters of the Timiș County Police Inspectorate. 13. At about 2 p.m., he was taken with ninety-three other police and customs officers by bus to the NAP headquarters in Bucharest. He alleged that during the journey he could not get off the bus and could not use his mobile phone or contact his lawyer. 14. At about 9.20 p.m., after travelling almost 600 km, they arrived at the NAP headquarters in Bucharest. 15. The applicant alleged that at the NAP headquarters in Bucharest he had been kept in a room under permanent guard and that he could not have any contact with his lawyer. He also claimed that he had neither been allowed to go and purchase food nor offered it; he had only been allowed to leave the room to go to the toilet or for a cigarette. 16. Multiple investigative activities were carried out that night by a large team of prosecutors. Each suspected officer was informed of the charges against him and invited to give a statement in the presence of a lawyer of his own choosing. 17. The same lawyer who had assisted the applicant during the search carried out at his residence arrived at the NAP headquarters at about 00.27 a.m. 18. At 8.15 a.m. on 9 February 2011, after almost eleven hours, the applicant was informed in the presence of his lawyer of the charges against him. He was provided with an eleven-page document containing a record of the facts. 19. At about 9.33 a.m. the applicant informed the investigators that he refused to give a statement on the grounds that he was very tired after being deprived of sleep for more than thirty hours. 20. At about 10.55 a.m. he was informed that the prosecutor had decided to remand him in custody for twenty-four hours. 21. A decision was taken to prosecute the applicant and a request to place him in pre-trial detention was lodged with the competent court. 22. At about 8 p.m. on 9 February 2011 he was taken to the Bucharest Court of Appeal for an examination of the prosecutor’s request concerning his pre-trial detention. The hearing started at 10.30 p.m. and lasted almost one hour. The court granted the prosecutor’s request and ordered the pre-trial detention of the applicant for twenty-nine days, from 9 February until 10 March 2011. The reasons adduced by the court to justify the detention were the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the alleged crimes, and their gravity and nature. 23. The applicant was taken to the Bucharest Police Station detention facility. 24. An appeal lodged by the applicant against his pre-trial detention was dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 14 February 2011. 25. On 2 March and 4 April 2011 respectively, the Bucharest Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court referred to the gravity of the charges, the strong suspicion that the offences had been committed and the repeated nature of the offences. It also stressed that the applicant had acted in his capacity as a customs officer when allegedly committing the offences. It concluded that it would not be in the public interest to release the applicant and the other customs and police officers. In assessing the impact on the public the applicant’s release from detention would have, the court stressed that the acts had been allegedly committed by a significant number of perpetrators over a long period of time, were repetitive and that the perpetrators were customs and police officers in charge of the protection of legal order. 26. On 9 March and 8 April 2011 respectively, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeals against the extension of his detention, upholding the interlocutory judgments of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 27. On 3 May 2011 the applicant was transferred to the Timișoara Police Station detention facility. 28. On 6 May 2011 the Timișoara Court of Appeal ordered his release from detention. An appeal lodged by the prosecutor was dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 7 May 2011. 29. The applicant was released on 8 May 2011 after three months in detention. 30. It appears that the proceedings on the merits are still pending. 31. The applicant claimed that he had been placed in a cell measuring 16 square metres, which he had shared with seven other detainees. He also complained of improper conditions of hygiene. 32. According to the applicant, the cell had a squat toilet and a shower, which were not separated from the living area. 33. The Government provided information about the applicant’s conditions of detention. They submitted that the applicant had been detained in a cell measuring 14.57 square metres, which he had occupied with seven other detainees. They pointed out that each cell had sanitary facilities such as a toilet and a shower, which were separated from the rest of the cell by a curtain.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicants live in Istanbul. They are followers of the Alevi faith. Mr Mansur Yalçın, Mr Yüksel Polat and Mr Hasan Kılıç all had school-age children. More specifically, E. Polat (Yüksel Polat’s daughter), who completed her secondary schooling in 2007, G. Kılıç (Hasan Kılıç’s son), who completed his secondary schooling in 2010, and T. Yalçın (Mansur Yalçın’s daughter), who completed her secondary schooling in 2010, were attending a secondary educational establishment at the relevant time. Mr Sofuoğlu stated that, at the time the domestic proceedings were instituted, his son and daughter had completed the second cycle of secondary education and were in higher education. Ms Serap Topçu and Ms Eylem Onat Karataş, meanwhile, stated that they had attended “compulsory religious culture and ethics classes” at school and that their young children – whose ages they did not specify – would likewise have to attend those classes when they went to school. 6. In Turkey, school attendance is compulsory for all children between the ages of 6 and 13. For the first four years, children attend primary school (Years 1 to 4). The following four years are spent in the first cycle of secondary school (Years 5 to 8). After that, pupils spend a further three or four years in school, depending on the subjects chosen, in an upper secondary school (lise). 7. On 22 June 2005 the applicants asked the Ministry of Education to initiate a consultation process with Alevi faith leaders with a view to overhauling the syllabus for religious culture and ethics classes and including Alevi culture and philosophy. They also requested the introduction of compulsory training for teachers of these classes and the setting-up of a monitoring and supervisory mechanism. They cited in that regard extracts from monitoring reports prepared by the European Commission which were critical of the content and the compulsory nature of the religious culture and ethics classes. 8. In its reply of 15 July 2005 the Religious Education Department of the Ministry of Education (“the Department”) stated that, in the textbooks used in religious culture and ethics lessons in the primary cycle, priority was given to the teaching of ethical and religious values common to society as a whole. As to the content of the classes at secondary level, the Department stated that, while respecting the same principles, the syllabus took a supra‑denominational approach (mezhepler üstü) and that the religious culture and ethics textbooks also presented other understandings of Islam. It added that the syllabus for the 2005/06 school year had been drawn up on the basis of this supra-denominational approach, which according to the Department was centred on the Koran, did not favour any particular branch of Islam and respected the principle of secularism. The Department also mentioned that the syllabus for Year 9 (the first year of upper secondary school) featured public figures who had been important in shaping the Turkish understanding of Islam, while the syllabus for Year 11 explained the different interpretations of Islam, and the Year 12 syllabus contained a wealth of information on Alevi-Bektashi (bektaşi) culture. In the same letter, the Department further specified that teacher training had been introduced ahead of the entry into effect of the new syllabus. Lastly, it observed that topics relating to the Alevi faith had been included in the religious culture and ethics syllabus for secondary schools for the 2005/06 school year. 9. After receiving the letter from the Department rejecting their proposal, the applicants and 1,905 other people challenged the Department’s decision in the Ankara Administrative Court. Referring to the Court’s case‑law on the subject, they argued that the teaching provided in religious culture and ethics lessons could not be said to satisfy the criteria of objectivity and pluralism. In support of their argument they presented six reports drawn up by various experts who had studied the textbooks used for the subject. Referring to the findings of those reports, they maintained that the textbooks in question provided instruction based on a “Sunni” interpretation of Islam and could by no means be regarded as neutral vis‑à‑vis other interpretations of Islam. They relied in particular on Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 10. The Ankara Administrative Court appointed of its own motion a committee of three experts tasked with drawing up a report on the teaching provided in the context of religious culture and ethics classes. 11. On an unspecified date a nine-page report written by a professor of Kalam (Islamic religious studies), a professor of education and a professor of religious sociology was added to the case file and sent to the applicants. The report stated in substance as follows. (i) For the purposes of the study the experts had examined the religious culture and ethics textbooks used in schools by Years 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 as authorised by the Ministry of Education. The religious culture and ethics syllabus for primary schools had been adopted by a decision of 28 December 2006 of the Supreme Council for Education attached to the Ministry of Education and had been introduced in the 2007/08 school year to replace the previous syllabus of 19 September 2000. The new secondary syllabus had come into effect following a decision of 31 March 2005. The textbooks criticised by the applicants had therefore been prepared under the earlier syllabus. (ii) The textbooks were structured around three main themes: religious culture, ethics and national and spiritual values. The parts concerning ethics and national and spiritual values covered topics common to all citizens. The part concerning religious culture had been drafted using a supra‑denominational approach centred on fundamental concepts such as the Koran and the Sunnah (Sünnet), and did not favour any particular branch of Islam. (iii) The syllabus did not give precedence to any particular faith. On the contrary, the textbooks reflected a supra-denominational approach. The syllabus observed the principle of objectivity and did not give priority to any faith or any religious group. The textbooks and the syllabus were designed to deliver information on Islam using pedagogical methods. (iv) The use of the religious culture and ethics textbooks written by M. Şahinbaş and A. Kabakçı for Years 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 had been discontinued in the 2007/08 school year following the changes to the syllabus. They had been replaced by new textbooks written by Ministry of Education committees. The same was true of the textbooks for upper secondary schools, which had been replaced in the 2006/07 school year. In drawing up the new syllabus implemented in the 2006/07 school year, the Ministry of Education had taken full account of the points raised by the applicants. (v) Unlike the former syllabus, the new syllabus covered topics such as the principles of the Alevi faith, the worship, mystical philosophy, ethical understanding, prayers (niyaz) and collective prayer (cem) of followers of the Alevi faith, and also Alevi principles and rites such as the twelve religious services (12 hizmet), the path to God, the Hizir and Muharram fasts (Hızır ve Muharrem orucu), the four gates (4 kapɪ) and forty levels (40 makam), the three Sunnahs (3 sünnet) and the seven obligations (7 farz). In the course of preparing the school textbooks and choosing the topics relating to the Alevi faith, worship and ethics, extensive recourse had been had to publications written by prominent Alevis. (vi) While the teaching of religion as such took account of the precepts of the Koran and the life of the prophet Mohammed, the other interpretations of Islam were covered in the context of cultural information. Hence, the textbooks provided information on Alevism, Jafarism (caferilik), Hanafism (hanefilik), Shafism (şafilik), Shiism (şiilik) and the Sufi movements. They also provided teaching on the foundations of Islam and in particular the five prayers, pilgrimage, charity and sacrifice. Around thirty pages were devoted to the Alevi faith. (vii) In conclusion, the report recommended the addition of references to certain aspects of the Alevi faith, for instance festivals, and specified that the cemevi was a place of cultural exchange for Alevis rather than a place of worship. 12. On 14 September 2009 the applicants contested the expert report and filed additional pleadings. They submitted that the teaching that was provided focused on the Sunni interpretation of Islam and that the Alevi faith was presented in summary fashion. Providing examples, they argued that much of the information presented contained errors. In particular, they claimed that the symbols linked to their faith had been ignored and that the mosque was presented as the Muslim place of worship. They asserted that certain Sunni Muslim rituals, namely the prayers or Salat (namaz) and ablutions (abdest) were imposed and were presented according to the Sunni interpretation of Islam. They also complained that the experts had denied that the cemevi was the Alevis’ place of worship. They criticised the Year 5 textbook, in which the main rituals of Islam were reportedly listed as Salat, fasting, pilgrimage and charity, arguing that the information provided was confined to the Sunni interpretation of Islam, whereas, in their view, a theological debate was under way as to how Salat should be performed. Lastly, they alleged that the textbooks in question treated the Alevi faith as a tradition or culture rather than as a fully-fledged faith. 13. In a judgment of 1 October 2009 the Ankara Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ claims on the ground that the refusal of their request by the respondent authorities had conformed to the relevant legislation. The court referred to the findings of the report on the teaching of religious culture and ethics (see paragraph 11 above), taking the view that religious subjects were dealt with using a supra-denominational approach in the textbooks for both the old and the new syllabus. The court considered that the principle of State neutrality had thus been respected and that the new topics had been chosen taking into account the country’s educational needs. 14. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the first‑instance judgment. 15. In a judgment of 13 July 2010, which was served on 2 August 2010, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal on points of law and upheld the first-instance judgment, which it considered to be in conformity with both the procedure and the law. 16. The Government provided the following additional information. Between June 2009 and March 2011 a large number of workshops (çalıştay) had been held in Turkey, attended by leaders of the Alevi‑Bektashi and other faiths, with the aim of examining issues concerning the Alevi community. The topics covered included the teaching of religious culture and ethics in primary and secondary schools. Following these workshops it was decided that the Ministry of Education would overhaul the existing syllabus. A special meeting was organised, chaired by the Secretary of State and attended by the leaders of different faith groups in Turkey and Ministry of Education experts. It was decided at the meeting that the process of overhauling the syllabus would be overseen by the Ministry’s Religious Education Department. 17. A series of meetings was held within the Religious Education Department, designed to allow an exchange of views and to identify the wishes of the different faiths. The meetings were attended by Alevi‑Bektashi, Jafari and Alawi (nusayri) leaders and examined the current syllabus and textbooks. In addition, on the basis of the findings of a report prepared by the Alevi-Bektashi, Jafari and Alawi representatives, the syllabus and the textbooks were amended in order to respond – in large part, in the Government’s submission – to the concerns expressed by the leaders of those communities. The new religious culture and ethics textbooks were introduced at the start of the 2011/12 school year. After overhauling the syllabus the national authorities organised training seminars throughout the country for teachers of the subject. 18. In Turkey, pupils belonging to the Jewish and Christian faiths are exempted from religious culture and ethics classes in accordance with decision no. 1 of 9 July 1990 of the Supreme Council for Education. The latter decided on 25 June 2012 and 14 August 2012 to draw up a religious instruction syllabus specifically designed for Jewish and Christian pupils in primary and secondary schools. To that end, a meeting was held in Istanbul on 10 and 11 September 2012 with Christian spiritual leaders. The national authorities also appointed a university-based coordinator to oversee preparation of the syllabus. At the meetings concerning the new syllabus it was made clear that the spiritual leaders of the faiths concerned were free to design the programme of religious instruction in accordance with their own beliefs, lifestyles and traditions. Accordingly, the Christian representatives sent a draft syllabus to the Ministry of Education and the Jewish representatives informed the Ministry that their syllabus was being finalised. The draft syllabuses will be discussed at a meeting to be attended by representatives of the faiths concerned with a view to adoption of a final version. 19. The Government produced before the Court a document drawn up by the Religious Education Department of the Ministry of Education. According to this document, those responsible for preparing the syllabus had taken care in drawing it up not to favour a particular faith but instead to adopt a supra-denominational approach. The document also stated that the wishes of the different religious groups had been taken into account and that the children of Alevi citizens were not forced to follow a particular religious teaching or practice. It further specified that the new syllabus had been adopted on 30 December 2010 and had been introduced at the start of the 2011/12 school year. The document was accompanied by a summary of the new course content and extracts from the textbooks dealing with the various interpretations of Islam. It explained, among other things, that topics relating to the Alevi-Bektashi, Jafari and Alawi communities had been incorporated in the syllabus and textbooks in question. Those topics are set out below. The textbooks for Years 4 and 5 proposed activities related to the sayings of Ali (son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed). They also contained passages concerning the importance attached to cleanliness by Haci Bektaş Veli (a leading Sufi and founder of the Bektashi brotherhood in the fourteenth century). Under the heading “Different examples of prayers in our culture”, they dealt with the various interpretations of certain surahs and Alevi-Bektashi prayers. They also referred to the significance of certain days and nights in that faith. The Year 6 textbook dealt with the five compulsory prayers (namaz) and the call to prayer (ezan) and also took Jafari practice into account. It further referred to the role and importance of Ali in Islam. Lastly, it presented leading figures like Ali er-Riza, Ahmet Yesevi and Haci Bektaş Veli, who had contributed to the adoption of Islam in Turkey. In the textbook for Year 7, an item concerning the Muharram fast had been added to the chapter on fasting, which also contained an account of the Battle of Karbala. The chapter entitled “Different interpretations within Islam” explored the Alevi-Bektashi faith. This last section addressed the following topics: the different types of cem, the twelve religious services, the semah[1], the spiritual brotherhood (musahiplik), prayers and the Hizir fast. These topics were also covered in the Year 12 textbook. Lastly, the textbooks for Years 9, 10 and 11 presented important figures in the Alevi-Bektashi faith and, in different passages, highlighted the role and importance of Ali in Islam. 20. The applicants submitted three documents in particular to the Court. The first was a research report compiled for the “Educational reform initiative” (Eğitim Reformu Girişimi) by Ms M. Yıldırım, an expert on religious freedom and director of the “Initiative for freedom of religion and beliefs in Turkey”. The report is entitled “An assessment of the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the 2011/12 school year” (2011-2012 Öğretim Yılında Uygulanan Din Kültürü ve Ahlak Bilgisi Dersi Programına İlişkin bir Değerlendirme). After analysing the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the 2011/12 school year, the expert went on to state as follows: “Syllabus for Years 1 to 8 If we compare the new syllabus for religious culture and ethics with the previous one, we can see that the changes made do not amount to a thorough overhaul based on principles such as impartiality and objectivity. The changes consisted mainly in adding some new information and moving a few chapters. Among the additions, a long chapter is now devoted to the different interpretations of Islam and certain traditions within Islam (primarily the Alevi-Bektashi and Jafari traditions), including terminology, practices and references. As to the overall content in terms of the teaching goals and the areas covered, the values and concepts dealt with in the syllabus remain close to those in the previous syllabus and no major changes have been made. Reading materials have been added at the end of each chapter in order to reinforce what has been learnt. In addition, certain principles are spelled out, for instance ‘Pupils shall not be compelled to follow religious practices’ and ‘Pupils shall not be required to learn verses or hadiths by heart or to copy out prayers and surahs other than those contained in the textbooks’ ... Year 7 ... The chapter devoted to the different interpretations of Islam in the old Year 8 syllabus ... is now on the syllabus for Year 7. As to the content, the following topics have been added: ‘The Sufi interpretations of Islam ...’ and ‘The fundamental concepts in the Alevi-Bektashi tradition’. In the same chapter, the notion of a ‘branch’ (mezhep) has been replaced by that of ‘religious interpretation’. With regard to the Alevi-Bektashi tradition, it is stated explicitly that only the following concepts will be covered: ‘cem, cemevi, rizalik, kul hakki, the twelve services, semah, spiritual brotherhood, gülbenk and the Hizir fast’ and that ‘the cemevi is to be considered as the place where the cem takes place’, thereby avoiding stating that the cemevi is a place of worship. ... Syllabus for Years 9 to 12 If we compare the new religious culture and ethics syllabus with the previous one, we can see that, as for the other year groups, the changes made do not amount to a thorough overhaul based on principles such as impartiality and objectivity, but consist in a number of additions and the moving around of a few chapters. ... Year 12 ... We can observe that, as regards the acquisition of knowledge through revelation (vahiy) and through reason, the content of the chapter headed ‘Sufi interpretations in Islamic thought’ has been enhanced. [It covers topics] such as ‘The role and importance of ethics in Sufi thought ...’, ‘Different types of cem’, ‘Concepts such as semah, spiritual brotherhood and gülbenk’, ‘The importance of the month of Muharram and of Ashura in our culture’ and ‘The nusayri’ ... The activities include one entitled ‘Learning about the Sufi interpretations’, and it is stated that pupils will be asked to research one of the following topics: the yesevilik, the mevlevilik and the Alevi-Bektashi faith ... . It is [also] stated that topics such as ‘The role of Haci Bektaş Veli in the Bektashi understanding and in the development of the Alevi faith’ will be covered and that ‘in terms of its fundamental underpinnings, the nusayri faith is structured around the Koran ...’. ... ... Can the syllabus for the compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics be said to be compatible with the Toledo principles? An analysis of the course content shows that it combines elements of ‘classes on a given religion from the perspective of that religion’, ‘classes providing limited, but relatively objective information on other religions’, ‘classes in ethics rooted in a particular religion’ and ‘classes on Islamic-Turkish civilisation’ rather than classes on religions. In that connection, the syllabus does not state that the course comprises classes on religions; on the contrary, it is stated that it is a course of ‘religious instruction. In Article 24 of the Constitution, the term used is ‘instruction in religious culture’, referring to a knowledge of religious culture drawing on a variety of sources, as opposed to ‘religious instruction’ (see Supreme Administrative Court judgments E.2006/6 – K.2007/481, 28 December 2007, and E.2007/679 – K.2008/1461, 29 February 2008). Moreover, the same Article contains another provision dealing specifically with ‘religious instruction’. In the syllabus, the word ‘religion’ is commonly used to denote Islam, but is sometimes, confusingly, used in the general sense. The most significant changes in the new syllabus compared with the previous one lie in the addition of terminology, practices and references relating to other interpretations or traditions within Islam. One does not need to be an expert in theology to conclude that the approach, structure and priorities have remained the same, with the diversity existing within Islam being reflected only in a few additions to the previous syllabus. Brief analysis in the light of the Toledo principles According to the Toledo principles, teaching about religions should be sensitive, balanced, inclusive, non-doctrinal, impartial, and based on human rights principles relating to freedom of religion or belief. ... Non-doctrinal The changes made to the syllabus and textbooks are not such as to alter the doctrinal nature of the classes. The expressions ‘our religion’, ‘our divine scripture’ and ‘our prophet’ are used frequently and are taught as religious dogma. Impartial The State’s duty of impartiality is incompatible with any power on the State’s part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs. However, the fact of stating that the cemevi is a place where the cem is practised amounts to an assessment. The rejection of the generally accepted idea among Alevis that the cemevi is a place of worship is incompatible with the State’s duty of impartiality ... ... Assessment of the content in the light of the legal requirements – the State, parents and children ... The fact that, at both primary and secondary level, religious culture and ethics classes are compulsory and include the dogmas and practices of the Muslim faith, and that the children are assumed to be followers of that faith, is liable to result in situations of conflict with parents’ religious and philosophical beliefs... Likewise, the use of expressions such as ‘our religion’, ‘my religion’, ‘our sacred book the Koran’ and ‘our prophet’, and the teaching of the surahs of the Koran and the practice of Salat (namaz) mean that parents who do not subscribe to the Muslim faith may find their children receiving instruction other than that which they wish to pass on to them. Furthermore, the fact that the surahs of the Koran and the practice of Salat are regarded as [knowledge] to be acquired means that children are liable to face a conflict of allegiances with the beliefs handed down by their parents, in breach of the individual’s right not to be compelled to act in a manner running counter to his or her own convictions. ... In sum, the changes made to the syllabus for religious culture and ethics are not sufficient to put an end to the violation of parents’ right to ensure [their children’s] education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions ... Conclusion Looking at the changes implemented in 2011/12, there has been some progress towards the desired goal, which is to ensure pluralist religious teaching, in so far as the compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics reflect the diversity existing within Islam in Turkey. These classes have also maintained their particular feature of dispensing both ‘teaching of the Muslim religion’ and ‘teaching of other religions’...” 21. The second document provided by the applicants was a study entitled “Issues regarding religion classes” (Din Dersi Sorunu), prepared on 23 January 2013 by M.K. Kılıç, a teacher of religious culture and ethics and education secretary of the teachers’ trade union Eğitim-İş. The parts of the study relevant to the present case read as follows: “... From the fourth year of the primary cycle until the end of upper secondary school, the syllabus for the classes in religious culture and ethics has been devised on the basis of the Sunni-Matrudi-Hanafite understanding of Islam. Either no instruction is given concerning other branches of Islam or these are considered as dissident branches (aykırı görüş). The main focus is always on Sunni Islam. Hence, the syllabus has not been prepared using a supra-denominational approach, but on the basis of a wholly denominational one (mezhepçi). ... In the textbooks, the Alevi faith is not regarded as a branch of Islam (mezhep). The syllabus deals only with the cultural aspects and folk traditions. In the textbook used in Year 7, in the chapter entitled “Interpretations within Islamic thought”, the Alevi faith is not regarded either as an interpretation of the faith (itikadi mezhep) or as a theological interpretation (fikhi yorum). It is described instead as a Sufi interpretation, with the result that it is not seen as one of the main branches like Sunnism or Shiism. In the syllabus for Years 7 and 12, the Alevi faith is placed in the same category as the Sunni brotherhoods (Sünni tarikatlar), that is to say, in a sub‑category vis-à-vis the main branches, which reduces its value. From both a faith-based and a theological perspective, however, the Alevi faith is an independent branch of Islam. [It is true that], ... in the Alevi faith, the mystical and Sufi interpretation predominates. However, presenting this faith solely as a Sufi entity does not reflect the reality... In sum, in the syllabuses and textbooks for the classes in religious culture and ethics: 2. Directly or indirectly, pupils are taught that the Alevi faith is a Sufi movement and that its rites are merely cultural and folk rituals rather than fundamental rites of Islam. 4. Likewise, the following facts are not acknowledged: the cem, which is the fundamental prayer of the Alevi faith, is the equivalent of the Salat (namaz) of the Sunnis and Shiites. The Alevis’ Muharram fast is the equivalent of Ramadan. The cemevi, the Alevi place of worship, is the equivalent of the Sunni or Shiite mosque. The semah is not a cultural or folk ritual, nor is it a zikr (or dhikr) ceremony (a ritual prayer or litany practised by the Sufi brotherhoods); it is actually a form of prayer. 5. The saz or bağlama is a sacred instrument for Alevis. The Alevi faith is inseparable from [this instrument]. ... If the syllabus and textbooks for this course are revised in a manner which takes account of these factors, the issue as regards Alevis [in relation to this course] can be considered to have been largely resolved.” 22. The third document was a study entitled “Compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics: between pluralist ‘supra-denominationalism’ and majority confessionalism”. It was prepared in January 2013 by A. Yaman, professor at Abant İzzet Baysal University and Chair of Political History, who is also an Alevi leader, more specifically a dede (religious and spiritual leader). The parts of relevance to the present case read as follows: “...The syllabus for the compulsory classes poses the greatest difficulties for Alevis, as the course content and the training given to the teachers are not compatible with the Alevi approach. The teaching is dispensed by staff whose background is in Sunni beliefs and culture and who are graduates of the imam-hatip (imam and preacher) schools or the faculties of theology, where they follow a curriculum [in line with Sunni beliefs and culture]. Such an arrangement may be regarded as suited to the needs of Sunni citizens ... but it can hardly be acceptable for the same syllabus to be taught to Alevis. It is clear from recent developments that the argument that the course content is ‘supra-denominational’ is false. In that connection, why is it that the textbooks which in 2005 were supposedly ‘supra-denominational’ were amended in 2008 and 2011, with passages on the Alevis being added following the meetings? One particular – and admittedly perfectly respectable – school of religious thought predominates in this course, and the Alevi faith is not adequately represented. Alevi children are caught in a stranglehold between the information they receive at school and that which is handed down by their families. Furthermore, problems arise with certain teachers ... ... Taking into account the proposals made by the commission [responsible for revising the content of the syllabus] which was set up following the workshops on Alevi issues (Alevi calıştayları) – and some of whose meetings I myself attended – a collection of the proposed amendments to the textbooks was sent to the Minister of State. [Subsequently] ..., some changes were made to the textbooks for Years 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 published in 2011. However, if we compare the proposals and the changes actually made, we can see that the number of changes is not nearly sufficient, and that a strategy was adopted that was restrictive and/or sought to exclude certain elements (dışlayıcı). This is naturally a source of dismay. [I think it is fair to say that] the fact that the basic Alevi form of worship, the cem, is presented in the Year 7 and Year 12 textbooks under the section devoted to religious interpretations rather than in the chapter on worship clearly demonstrates that [the syllabus] was not devised on the basis of a supra-denominational approach and that the textbooks were written from a specific perspective. ... ...The commission’s proposal to recognise ‘the cemevi [as] a place of worship’ was disregarded ... Moreover, it is interesting to note that, whereas Salat is explained in detail using drawings [in the Year 5 textbook] and that, under the heading ‘Learning about the mosque’ [the different parts of the mosque] are illustrated with drawings and poems, no description is provided of any Alevi institution or rule. In these compulsory classes, Alevi pupils can learn about the main forms of worship only according to the Sunni understanding of Islam... Although the commission presented proposals concerning the inclusion of topics relating to the cem and the other Alevi forms of worship [in the chapter on worship of the Year 6 textbook], the approach adopted consists in stating that ‘worship takes the form of Salat’... The Alevi faith is presented in the context of the spiritual brotherhoods and Sufism, including the naksilik and kadirilik brotherhoods, etc., instead of featuring in the chapter on beliefs and worship. [Hence] the cemevi is presented merely as a gathering place for the brotherhoods ...” 23. The Government expressed doubts as to the objectivity and impartiality of the expert reports submitted by the applicants. They maintained in particular that the documents entitled “An assessment of the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the 2011/12 school year” and “Issues regarding religion classes”, submitted by the applicants, were not the work of academics.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Warsaw. 6. The applicant and A.W. were in a relationship that started in May 2003. On 13 April 2004 their twin daughters were born (A. and J.). Subsequently, in February 2005, the applicant and A.W. separated. 7. On 2 November 2007 the applicant lodged a motion with the Warsaw Mokotów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for the establishment of contact and an interim contact order. 8. At the same time A.W. lodged a motion with the Warsaw District Prosecutor alleging that the applicant had sexually abused A. and J. On 8 January 2008 the prosecutor informed the Warsaw District Court about the allegations of sexual abuse. The court ordered a social enquiry report (wywiad środowiskowy) into the case, which was conducted on 9 February 2008. On 19 February 2008 the prosecutor instituted a criminal investigation into the allegations of sexual abuse. 9. On 21 January 2008 the Warsaw Mokotów District Court issued an interim contact order. Under the terms of that order, the applicant was allowed to visit the children every other Sunday between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. 10. On 28 March 2008 the court stayed the custody proceedings as the criminal proceedings into the alleged sexual abuse were pending. 11. Meanwhile, on 15 June 2008 the Warsaw District Court of its own motion instituted proceedings concerning the limitation of the applicant’s custody rights. 12. During the course of the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor obtained two expert reports and heard a number of witnesses. On 31 October 2008 the prosecution discontinued the criminal proceedings into the allegations of sexual abuse on the grounds that there was not enough evidence that the alleged offences had been committed. The court-appointed expert established that A. and J. had not demonstrated the psychological symptoms of a sexually abused child. However, according to a private expert opinion provided by A.W., the facts of the case demonstrated that the children had been sexually abused. A.W. appealed against the decision to discontinue the proceedings. The prosecutor’s decision was upheld by the Warsaw Mokotów District Court. 13. On 20 January 2009 the Warsaw Mokotów District Court resumed the proceedings for the establishment of contact. At the same time it also resumed the proceedings for limitation of the applicant’s custody rights. 14. On 10 June 2009 the District Court modified the interim contact order, allowing the applicant to see his daughters every Saturday between 9 a.m and 6 p.m. in their home. The court also ordered A.W. to set a new time in case a Saturday visit was not possible. Both parties lodged interlocutory appeals. They were dismissed on 9 November 2009. 15. On 3 September 2009 the applicant submitted a report to the court indicating that the mother had failed to comply with the terms of the access arrangements. The applicant’s letter also contained a description of several visits that had taken place between May 2008 and August 2009. 16. On 23 December 2009 the mother applied for a change to the access arrangements. She asked the court to order visits every two weeks for four hours. 17. On 24 February 2010 the Warsaw Mokotów District Court again modified the interim contact order, allowing the applicant to visit his children every Saturday between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. in their home. The court also ordered that the parents and children be examined by experts in the Regional Family Consultation Centre (Rodzinny ośrodek diagnostyczno-konsultacyjny) (“RODK”). The court also ordered a further expert opinion. 18. The meeting scheduled with RODK for June 2010 did not take place because the daughters were ill. The next meeting took place on 20 September 2010. According to the expert opinion, the daughters were drawn into the parents’ conflict by their mother. Both daughters sought contact with their father and wished to visit him in his home. The experts recommended therapy involving both parents and children. 19. The opinions of RODK and of the court’s expert were submitted to the court on 22 October 2010 and 7 February 2011. Following the change of the presiding judge, a hearing date was set for 2 March 2011. 20. Subsequently, the applicant applied for a change of the access arrangements. On 9 March 2011 the court issued yet another interim contact order and ruled that the applicant could meet his children every other Saturday and Sunday between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. outside their home. The court considered that there was an emotional bond between the applicant and his daughters and in order to preserve it, it was important that the contact take place outside the children’s home. The court further referred to the expert opinion of W.B., who confirmed that A. and J. had not demonstrated symptoms of being victims of sexual abuse. However, the mother refused to comply with this order and lodged an appeal. On 25 July 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. 21. Subsequently, A.W. cancelled most of the visits on the grounds that the children had been away and from 10 September 2011 she refused all visits. 22. On 7 October 2011 A.W. applied for modification of the access arrangements. Her motion was dismissed by the Warsaw Mokotów District Court on 24 October 2011. 23. During a hearing held on 11 October 2011, A.W. again applied for a change of access arrangements. She agreed to respect the interim order of 9 March 2011, however she made a request to the court that the contact should take place in the presence of the children’s babysitter or a court-appointed guardian. During that hearing the court heard evidence from the expert W.B., who confirmed that he did not consider that A. and J. demonstrated behaviour typical of children who had been sexually abused. He based his opinion on an analysis of the court files and a VHS recording of the children’s interview. 24. On 16 December 2011 the Warsaw Mokotów District Court gave a final decision in the case. It ordered that the applicant could meet his children every other Saturday and Sunday between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. The visits would take place in the children’s home with the mother present and in the applicant’s home with the presence of a court-appointed guardian. The court considered that the applicant should be allowed to meet his daughters outside their home and without the mother’s presence since the girls needed contact with their father. However, the court also stressed that, because the applicant’s contact with his daughters had not been regular, he did not know much about them. The applicant appealed. 25. After February/March 2012, the applicant was again able to exercise his right of contact with his daughters on a weekly basis, every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. at A.W.’s home. 26. On 29 May 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the Warsaw District Court’s decision. The court held that the proceedings concerning the limitation of the applicant’s custody rights should not have been joined with the access proceedings. In addition, due to different requirements concerning the composition of the court in both cases, the District Court had sat in an incorrect formation and the proceedings were null and void. 27. At a hearing held on 30 November 2012 both the applicant and A.W. testified. The applicant submitted that after their separation in 2005 the contact with his children had been irregular. In September 2007 A.W. (who is an actress) had participated in a live TV show and the girls had stayed at the applicant’s home every Saturday and had been collected by their mother on Sunday morning. Once the TV shows were finished at the beginning of October 2007, the applicant had wished to continue this arrangement, however A.W. disagreed. Consequently he lodged his application with the District Court. He stressed that after the court had delivered its first interim order (see paragraph 9 above), many of the visits had not taken place since A.W. had been absent for the weekend. The applicant further submitted that the interim order of 9 March 2011 (see paragraph 20 above) had never been enforced because whenever he had come to collect the children either A.W. had not been at home or she had refused to open the door. Lastly, the applicant confirmed that between September 2011 and February 2012 he had not seen his children at all. Since March 2012 he had been visiting his daughters every Saturday for 4 hours at their home. The children’s mother A.W. confirmed to the District Court that between 2005 and September 2007 she had allowed the applicant to contact their daughters on many occasions. However, after she discovered that the applicant might have abused her daughter A., she had prohibited all contact. The contact had restarted in January 2008. She had never complied with the order of 9 March 2011 since she had been concerned about her daughters’ wellbeing. She further informed the court that she was planning to move to Gdansk with the daughters and her new partner. 28. On 3 December 2012 the Warsaw District Court gave its decision. The court ordered that the applicant could meet his children every other Saturday and Sunday between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. The visits would take place outside the children’s home and without the presence of their mother. In addition, he could spend Christmas with them every odd year and Easter every even year and also parts of the summer and winter holidays. However, the applicant was only allowed to visit his daughters between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. and they were not allowed to stay overnight at his home. 29. Both parties appealed. 30. The applicant instituted proceedings for enforcement of the interim contact orders and made several applications for fines to be imposed on A.W. under Article 1051 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 31. On 23 November 2009 the applicant lodged a motion for the imposition of a fine on A.W. for failure to comply with the access arrangements as specified in the interim contact order of 10 June 2009. 32. On 17 May 2010 the Warsaw Mokotów District Court ordered A.W. to enforce the interim contact order of 27 February 2010 within 30 days, on pain of payment of a fine of 500 Polish zlotys (PLN). The court established that initially the contact had taken place regularly, but this had been in accordance with the terms of the previous interim contact order of 21 January 2008 (every other Saturday from 10 am to 2 pm instead of every Saturday from 9 am to 6 pm). Such an arrangement had resulted from the interpretation given to A.W. by the lawyers from the Ombudsman’s Office, who informed her that the new interim contact order would be effective only once it had become final. The court further observed that the contact had been regular; most of the visits were shortened or cancelled by the applicant and not by the mother. Lastly, the court ordered the mother to comply with the interim order of 27 February 2010. 33. On 24 August 2010 the applicant lodged a motion for imposition of a fine on A.W. He submitted that she had failed to comply with the order of 17 May 2010. 34. On 15 March 2011 the Warsaw Mokotów District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings. The court held that the interim contact order had been modified in the meantime (on 9 March 2011) and there was therefore no need to deliver a decision in the present set of proceedings. The applicant appealed, asking the court to impose a fine on A.W. His appeal was dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Court on 11 August 2011. The court repeated the reasons given by the District Court and held that the interim order of 10 June 2009 had been replaced by a new interim order of 9 March 2011. 35. In November 2012 the applicant lodged a new motion for the imposition of a fine on A.W. 36. On 4 January 2013 the court imposed a fine on A.W.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant, Ms Dana Ruxanda Atudorei, is a Romanian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Bucharest. 6. In her initial letter to the Court, the applicant stated that from an early age she had been subjected to repeated physical and psychological abuse by her family. Her parents, especially her mother, had been aggressive towards her both verbally and physically, had refused to allow her to go anywhere unsupervised and had taken her to a psychologist because she had not achieved the highest possible marks when she was in second grade. In addition, her parents’ abuse had continued after they discovered that she had been attending weekly yoga classes organised by the Movement for Spiritual Integration into the Absolute (Mişcarea pentru Integrare Spirituală în Absolut – “MISA”). 7. According to some reports, including an Amnesty International report of 27 May 1997 (AI Index EUR 39/03/97), from 1995 there had been several accounts of alleged police abuse of individuals who practised yoga and who were members of MISA. The reports noted that the authorities seemed to condone public intolerance of MISA as they perceived the leader of the organisation as an individual who urged his sympathisers to leave their way of life in order to pursue a communal life and to practice sexual perversion. 8. In March 2004 a large-scale negative press campaign and police operation targeted MISA. The leader and some members of the organisation faced criminal investigation for the alleged sexual corruption of minors. MISA’s leader left the country for Sweden. In 2005 the Swedish authorities refused an extradition request by the Romanian authorities. 9. On 30 July 2003 the applicant, who was of full legal age, was hospitalised in the Socola Psychiatric Hospital. According to her, she was taken to the said hospital by her parents against her will after they had discovered that she was attending yoga classes. 10. The medical reports produced by the said hospital stated that it was the first time the patient had been admitted to the Socola Hospital, and that she had been admitted at her mother’s request because of anxious and negative behaviour, irritability, a tendency to cry easily and depression, which were a reaction to psychological trauma, in particular a conflict with her parents. She was diagnosed with reactive depression and anxiety. The applicant’s condition had improved after group psychotherapy. She had been recommended medical treatment, psychotherapy and been advised to avoid psychotraumatic situations. 11. Her hospitalisation ended on 8 August 2003. 12. On 19 January 2005 the applicant travelled to her hometown, Bârlad, accompanied by M.A., her fiancé, in order to obtain a copy of her birth certificate, which she needed inter alia for her marriage to M.A. 13. While she was in the building housing the register office (Oficiul de Stare Civilă), her family appeared and surrounded her. 14. According to the applicant, her mother convinced her to go outside and talk to them before applying for her birth certificate. Once outside the building, her family became aggressive. After they pushed M.A. to the ground, they forced her into a vehicle and drove her to her grandparents’ house. Once there, her family took away her regular clothes and replaced them with old clothes and slippers. They also took away her money and identity papers. In addition, she was kept indoors continuously, supervised, threatened and psychologically pressured by them. 15. On 21 January 2005 Dr F., a general practitioner, referred the applicant to a psychiatric hospital with a diagnosis of schizo-paranoid behavioural disorder (tulburare de comportament de tip schizoparanoidă). There is no evidence in the file if Dr F. assessed the applicant prior to the drafting of the referral note, or on how the diagnosis was established. 16. On 3 February 2005 the applicant’s parents took her to the Nifon Unit of the Săpoca Psychiatric Hospital. According to the hospital’s public webpage, it is located in a forest 25 kilometres from the town of Buzău and can be reached only by private car or minibus. 17. On the same date, the applicant’s mother signed an informed consent form provided by the hospital on behalf of the applicant, acknowledging that she had read, understood and had time to consider all the information in the leaflet entitled “Information on Clozapin (Leponex) for patients and their families” (Informații despre Clozapin pentru pacienți si familii), that all her questions had been answered adequately and she had clarified any unknown words with the doctor or a member of the medical team, and that she was willing to accept the risks of the treatment. 18. The applicant’s mother was admitted to the hospital together with the applicant and remained there for the first five weeks of the latter’s hospitalisation. 19. According to a clinical observation paper on the applicant produced by the Săpoca Psychiatric Hospital, she had been hospitalised on the basis of Dr F.’s referral and diagnosis. The diagnosis on the day of hospitalisation had been “evolving borderline [disorder]” (borderline ȋn evoluție). That diagnosis remained unchanged during her hospitalisation and on the day of her discharge. During her hospitalisation the applicant was given psychotropic drug treatment which included Leponex. Her condition and progress were regularly monitored. She repeatedly suffered from, inter alia, constipation, lack of insight, lack of communication and drowsiness. She also presented a risk of orthostatic hypertension, which was monitored. In addition, on 4 March 2005 she “mentioned discharge” (aminteşte despre externare). 20. On 11 March 2005 the Vaslui Police Department informed M.A. that, inter alia, the applicant had been admitted to a specialised medical clinic for treatment and that the doctors had prohibited any contact with her during the full course of treatment. 21. On 16 March 2005 the applicant signed a written statement to the effect that she refused to allow the disclosure of the information in her observation paper. 22. The applicant was discharged from hospital on 1 April 2005. 23. On 24 August 2005, following an enquiry by Dr F., Dr I. agreed that the applicant was fit to enrol at a university. 24. On 16 October 2010 the management of the Săpoca Psychiatric Hospital informed the Government that according to Dr I. the applicant’s hospitalisation had been voluntary. On account of the applicant’s clinical condition, the informed consent form had been signed by the applicant’s mother on her behalf. The applicant could have left the hospital at any time. The hospital was located in the middle of a forest but had no fence or guards. The applicant had had access to two mobile phones and two landline phones. She had not been guarded at any time during her hospitalisation because the Nifon Unit of the Săpoca Psychiatric Hospital was not designed for forced hospitalisation and was used only for voluntary hospitalisations. The informed consent form signed by the applicant’s mother had amounted to an agreement to both hospitalisation and treatment because at that time, that is, on 3 February 2005, a standardised informed consent form had not been required. The hospital had applied the full procedure for non-voluntary hospitalisation as per the rules of enforcement contained in Law no. 487 of 11 July 2002 on mental health and the protection of people with mental disorders (“Law no. 487/2002”) from 2006, when that legislation was enacted. 25. On 19 January 2005 M.A. brought criminal proceedings against the applicant’s parents and brother, for unlawful deprivation of liberty. 26. The preliminary criminal investigation was assigned to police officer G.C. 27. On 20 January 2005 the applicant’s father gave a statement to the police officer. He mentioned that the applicant had refused to join them in returning home. Nonetheless, disregarding her refusal, they had taken her to her grandparents’ house and then had her hospitalised. They had taken those measures because they considered that it was their duty to help their daughter in view of the negative reports they had heard about MISA. 28. On 16 March 2005 police officer G.C. recommended, on the basis of the available evidence, that the Bârlad prosecutor’s office should not initiate criminal proceedings. The police officer had established that in 2003 the applicant had left her parents’ home and had started attending yoga classes organised by MISA. Subsequently, she had abandoned her studies and ceased to communicate with her family except for a few telephone conversations and a publicly televised argument. According to her parents, they had a family history of mental illness affecting consent. In this context, after discovering the applicant’s visit to her home town they had tried to talk to her outside the register office, but M.A. opposed. After a skirmish, the applicant’s mother had taken her to the family car in order to continue the discussion. M.A. had attempted to stop the car and had subsequently fallen to the ground. According to the staff members of the register office the applicant’s parents had not acted against her will. From 19 January to 3 February 2005 the applicant had lived with her maternal grandparents and had then been hospitalised in the Săpoca Psychiatric Hospital. An attempt had been made to question the applicant while she was there, but this had not been possible because she had been administered psychotropic medication. 29. By a decision of 13 April 2005, the Bârlad prosecutor’s office, in particular prosecutor N.C., relying on the facts established by police officer G.C., decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant’s parents and brother on the ground that no offence had been committed. 30. The applicant’s fiancé challenged that decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor. He argued that the criminal investigation had been superficial because, inter alia, the authorities had failed to take a statement from the applicant, establish the type of medical treatment administered to her, and ascertain whether she had been taken away by her parents against her will. 31. By a final decision of 23 May 2005, the Bârlad prosecutor’s office, in particular the head prosecutor R.F., dismissed M.A.’s challenge as ill‑founded. It held that it had not been possible to take a statement from the applicant because she had been in a situation and state which prevented her from engaging in conversation as a result of psychotropic medication she had been administered, which had a negative psychopathological effect. Moreover, it would have been immoral to find that the applicant’s parents had unlawfully deprived her of her freedom given that she had been unable to express her own will because she was constantly accompanied by MISA members and was not allowed to attend meetings alone. M.A. was sixteen years older than the applicant and he had not been able to prove that he was her fiancé. He had initially informed an employee at the mayor’s office that he was the applicant’s boyfriend, and had stated that he was her fiancé only after a telephone conversation with a third party, and only in order to justify his own interests in respect of the applicant. It had been natural for the applicant’s parents to attempt to bring their daughter back home by any means necessary and to try to ensure her physical and emotional recovery, given that they had seen the press campaign concerning what happened to young women at the MISA premises. According to her parents, they had made considerable efforts to recover the applicant physically, while psychologically it had been clear that she was unable to express herself as long as MISA members accompanied her everywhere, including to family meetings. As to the medical treatment the applicant had been administered, the parties would have to ask the doctor who had treated her. The applicant’s fiancé appealed against that decision before the domestic courts. 32. By a judgment of 21 October 2005, the Bârlad District Court dismissed the applicant’s fiancé’s appeal. It held that he had refused to substantiate his action before the court. Moreover, there was no evidence in the file that the applicant’s parents had unlawfully deprived her of her freedom. 33. There is no evidence in the case-file that the applicant’s fiancé lodged any appeal on points of law (recurs) against that judgment. 34. On 1 April 2005 the applicant was released from hospital and taken by her parents to her grandparents’ house. According to the applicant, during her stay there she was kept under supervision and isolated from the outside world. 35. On 23 May 2005 the applicant brought criminal proceedings against her parents, alleging, inter alia, that they had forcibly detained her and that she had been unable to leave the house. She urged the authorities to do everything necessary to help her leave, given that she was of age and wanted to live her own life. 36. By a decision of 27 September 2005, the Bârlad prosecutor’s office, dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the ground that her parents’ actions did not disclose any elements of an offence. It noted that the applicant’s parents had been worried because she was a MISA member, and that was why they had taken her to her grandmother’s home and then to a psychiatric hospital. According to the applicant’s statement following her questioning, she had not been forcibly detained by her parents but they had helped to get her admitted to a psychiatric hospital. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant challenged the above-mentioned decision before the domestic courts. 37. According to the applicant, on 10 October 2005, helped by friends and her fiancé, she managed to leave her grandparents’ house. Afterwards she settled in Bucharest and on 5 November 2005 she married M.A. 38. On 3 August 2005 the applicant brought disciplinary proceedings before the Buzău Disciplinary Commission against Dr I. in respect of her forced placement in the Nifon Unit of the Săpoca Psychiatric Hospital and the medical treatment that she had received there. 39. On 13 December 2005 and 3 October 2007, Dr P., the applicant’s private psychiatrist, issued two medical certificates stating that she was psychologically healthy. The certificates noted that the applicant had been monitored by Dr P. since 15 October 2005 and that during that time she had not received any treatment and had shown no signs of a psychological condition. 40. On 1 March 2006 the Buzău Disciplinary Commission dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The applicant challenged the decision before the Higher Disciplinary Commission (Comisia superioară de disciplină a Colegiului Medicilor din România). 41. On 20 April 2007 the Higher Disciplinary Commission quashed the Buzău Disciplinary Commission’s decision of 1 March 2006, finding that Dr I. had acted in breach of the rules of good medical practice, and gave him a warning (avertisment). It held that according to the available evidence the applicant and her parents had been in a state of conflict and she had been opposed to her hospitalisation. Consequently, the doctor had been required to examine the patient’s clinical situation and the circumstances she was facing. Regardless of his decision, the doctor had to protect the patient. If he had assessed the patient’s clinical condition as amounting to an imminent risk for her or others, or if failure to hospitalise her would have aggravated her condition, non-voluntary hospitalisation would have been required even if the patient objected to her hospitalisation. However, there was no evidence that the relevant procedure had been initiated. 42. At the same time, only medical reasons could justify a decision to hospitalise. However, the observation sheet produced by the hospital mentioned as one of the reasons for hospitalisation – none of them of a psychotic intensity to suggest a psychotic development in the borderline disorder – that the patient had joined counter-cultural informal groups (agregă ȋn grupuri informale disculturale). Moreover, the observation sheet did not contain a full psychological assessment. Consequently, the treatment with Laponex had not been justified. 43. Furthermore, the Buzău Disciplinary Commission’s arguments that the hospitalisation had not been forced because the patient could have left the hospital, and that Dr I. had a professional duty to examine the patient and to prescribe adequate treatment, could not be taken into consideration. The doctor’s conduct had to be in accordance with the law, which stated that the treatment had to be discussed with the patient and that the patient’s consent had to be sought prior to treatment. The aforementioned conditions became less important only in the circumstances of forced hospitalisation. However, it did not appear that a forced hospitalisation procedure had been initiated in the applicant’s case. 44. Leponex treatment was to be used exclusively in the advanced stages of schizophrenia or in cases of severe borderline personality disorder involving frequent relapses and self-harm, if no other medication proved to offer a satisfactory improvement in the patient’s condition. The use of that medication in the applicant’s case from the early stages of her treatment had been unusual. In some cases the medication could cause agranulacytosis (a low white blood cells count which favours fevers and infections). Consequently, doctors who prescribed it were required to comply strictly with the necessary safety measures. However, in the applicant’s case there was no evidence that the required weekly blood tests had been carried out. 45. Furthermore, the necessary tests for establishing whether she was suffering from a borderline personality disorder had not been conducted at all. 46. On 14 December 2005 the applicant brought criminal proceedings for unlawful deprivation of liberty between 19 January and 10 October 2005, serious bodily harm, and cooperation with a view to committing an offence, against her family, police officer G.C. and Dr I. She argued that the culprits had cooperated in order to unlawfully deprive her of her liberty, to hospitalise her against her will and to damage her health as a result of the medical treatment she received in the hospital. 47. On 1 June 2006 the Bacău prosecutor’s office questioned the applicant. She stated, inter alia, that on arrival at the hospital she had informed the nurse who had told her that she was being hospitalised that she opposed the measure. She had subsequently been taken to Dr I.’s office, where she had had a short conversation with him and she had expressly informed him that she did not wish to remain in the hospital. The doctor had informed her that her general practitioner had referred her to the hospital, and he forced her to take medication, which had made her drowsy and numb. Afterwards she had been taken out of the doctor’s office and one of the nurses had asked her to sign a document which she was unable to read owing to her situation. The nurse had not informed her of the document’s content. Although she had signed the document automatically, she had only later been told that she had signed her hospitalisation papers. 48. The applicant further stated that during her hospitalisation she had been constantly supervised by her mother. In addition, she had received inappropriate medication and had constantly felt ill. In particular, she had suffered nausea, headaches, drowsiness, constipation, urinary incontinence, excess salivation, low immunity, loss of motor control and loss of insight. She had also gained fifteen kilos and had developed anaemia as a result of suffering haemorrhages. 49. She also stated that during her hospitalisation she had informed police officer G.C. that she had been hospitalised against her will, and because he had refused to act on that information she had refused to grant him access to her medical file. In July 2005 the same police officer had visited her at her grandparents’ house to question her after her fiancé had brought criminal proceedings against some of her family members. On that occasion the police officer had dictated the content of her statement and had omitted some of the facts presented by her. 50. On 21 June 2006, the applicant informed the Bacău prosecutor’s office that she had joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party. 51. On 28 November 2006, the Bacău prosecutor’s office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against G.C. on the ground that no offence had been committed, ordered that the criminal investigation be continued in respect of the applicant’s family members, and referred the case to the Moineşti prosecutor’s office. It noted that police officer G.C. had visited the applicant at the hospital in order to take a statement from her. While initially Dr I. had denied G.C. access to the applicant because of her medical condition, in the following days he had agreed to allow him to speak to her. The prosecutor’s office also noted that according to G.C. the applicant had refused to provide a statement or to allow him to copy her medical observation papers, and had not informed him that she had been hospitalised against her will. Lastly, it noted that there was no evidence to suggest that police officer G.C. had been informed that the applicant had been deprived of her liberty when he questioned her at her grandparents’ home in July 2005. The applicant challenged the decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor. 52. By a decision of 5 February 2007, the head prosecutor at the Bacău prosecutor’s office allowed the applicant’s challenge, quashed the decision of 28 November 2006 and ordered that the investigation be reopened. The head prosecutor considered that the applicant and the defence witnesses indicated by her should be heard. In addition, the medical documents concerning the applicant’s state of health, the reasons for her hospitalisation and her medical recovery were to be attached to the investigation file. 53. On 8 May 2007, the Bacău prosecutor’s office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against police officer G.C., the applicant’s family members or Dr I. on the ground that no offence had been committed. It held that according to the medical report of 21 March 2005 produced by the Psychiatric Centre of the Nifon Unit, the applicant had been suffering from a schizo-paranoid behavioural disorder which had required her hospitalisation in a specialised medical facility for treatment and medical supervision. Her family’s actions had been caused by the applicant joining MISA, and they had only been attempting to provide her with the opportunity to continue her treatment. The applicant challenged that decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor. 54. By a final decision of 13 June 2007, the head prosecutor of the Bacău prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s challenge and upheld the decision of 8 May 2007. The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts. She argued that after the investigation of the case had been reopened on 5 February 2007, the authorities had failed to gather any additional evidence, in particular to hear witnesses, to determine the circumstances of her confinement, and to examine the medical treatment she had received, which had affected her health. 55. By a judgment of 16 November 2007, the Bacău County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the prosecutor’s office. It held that no offence of cooperating in order to commit an unlawful act could have been committed given that it could not be concluded that the alleged perpetrators had met one another other than by chance, or that they had made detailed plans to commit an offence. In addition, the available evidence did not confirm the existence of an offence of serious bodily harm. There were no medical reports supporting the allegations of trauma, and the medical report of 21 March 2005 produced by the Psychiatric Centre of the Nifon Unit had stated that the applicant was suffering from a schizo‑paranoid behavioural disorder which required her hospitalisation in a specialised medical facility for treatment and medical supervision. Lastly, the available evidence did not confirm the existence of an offence of unlawful deprivation of liberty either. On the basis of the witness statements, it could not be concluded that on 19 January 2005 the applicant’s family had acted against her will. The applicant had also failed to inform officer G.C. that her family had deprived her of her liberty either at the hospital or at her grandparents’ home. Consequently, given the absence of clear and concrete evidence of guilt, the alleged perpetrators’ right to the presumption of innocence could not be rebutted. 56. The court further dismissed the applicant’s argument that after the re-opening of the criminal investigation no further evidence had been added to the file, on the grounds that she had been heard by the prosecutor’s office and that she had not requested the hearing of witnesses or additional evidence. The applicant’s argument that the authorities had failed to review the circumstances of her confinement and the medical treatment she had received was also dismissed on the ground that the medical documents attached to the file had stated her diagnosis and the doctor’s recommendation of hospitalisation, treatment and medical supervision. 57. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against that judgment. 58. By a final judgment of 14 February 2008, the Bacău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law on the ground that the available evidence did not clearly and unequivocally prove the guilt of the alleged perpetrators. The judgment was drafted on 20 February 2008 and appears to have been made available to the applicant on 18 June 2008. 59. On 27 February 2007, following the referral of the Bacău prosecutor’s office of 28 November 2006 (see paragraph 51 above), the Moinești prosecutor’s office decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant’s family members, Dr I., and police officer G.C., on the ground that no offences had been committed. It noted, inter alia, that the applicant had been committed to hospital with a diagnosis of paranoid behavioural disorder. Moreover, her condition required continuous outpatient medical care for an undetermined period of time. The applicant challenged the decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor. 60. On 7 June 2007 the head prosecutor of the Moinești prosecutor’s office declined to examine the applicant’s challenge on the ground that the prosecutor who had delivered the decision of 27 February 2007 was his wife, and he referred the case to the Bacău prosecutor’s office. 61. By a final decision of 15 June 2007, the Bacău prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s challenge on the ground that it had already examined the issues raised by it in its decision of 8 May 2007. The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts. She argued that the authorities investigating her case had failed to gather all available evidence, or hear all parties to the proceedings, and that the decision of the Bacău prosecutor’s office had concerned a different person and different offences. 62. By a judgment of 22 November 2007, the Moineşti District Court allowed the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decision, ordered the Moineşti prosecutor’s office to continue its investigation of the case, to gather the evidence requested by the parties and to question the parties, the staff members of the hospital, and the neighbours of the grandmother in whose house the applicant had been held. It held that the previous decisions by the prosecutor’s offices had addressed the applicant’s complaints in respect of only some of the parties concerned. In addition, the medical report of 21 March 2005 had been contradicted by the conclusions of the Higher Disciplinary Commission’s decision. Further, according to the applicant’s psychiatrist, from 15 October 2005 the applicant had not received any treatment and had not shown any symptoms of illness. 63. The Moineşti prosecutor’s office and the defendants appealed on points of law. The prosecutor’s office argued that the statements that had been taken by the Bacău prosecutor’s office were relevant on account of the hierarchical relationship between the two prosecutors’ offices, and therefore the re-questioning of the applicant and of the perpetrators had no longer been required. In addition, the applicant had failed to identify the witnesses she wished to have questioned. The questioning of all medical staff had no legal basis and the court had not identified which of the neighbours of the applicant’s grandmother should have been questioned, or the scope of such questioning. Moreover, the applicant had failed to prove that any offences had actually been committed, had not submitted any medical report attesting to a bodily injury, and had herself acknowledged that she had signed the hospitalisation papers automatically, and that during her stay at her grandparents’ home she had had access to a visiting room (vorbitor) and thus had been able to communicate with others. Furthermore, according to the Higher Disciplinary Commission the hospitalisation of a patient was possible against his or her will. The same body had concluded that the applicant’s hospitalisation had been voluntary. Lastly, the psychiatrist had been disciplined on account of the inappropriate treatment administered to the applicant and not because the applicant had not been suffering from a behavioural disorder. The defendants argued that the circumstances of the case had already been examined during the sets of proceedings which had ended with the final decision of 23 May 2005 and the final judgment of 14 February 2008. 64. By a final judgment of 11 April 2008, the Bacău County Court declared the Prosecutor Office’s appeal on points of law inadmissible on procedural grounds, allowed the defendants’ appeal on points of law, quashed the judgment of the lower court, and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 15 June 2007. It held that the circumstances of the case had already been examined during the sets of proceedings which had ended with the final decision of 23 May 2005 and the final judgment of 14 February 2008, and that the applicant had not adduced any new information or evidence in order to justify the opening of criminal proceedings in respect of the same acts and persons. 65. On 30 January 2006 the applicant brought criminal proceedings for abuse of office and aiding and abetting an offender against prosecutors R.F. and N.C. The applicant complained about the quality of the prosecutors’ investigations. 66. On 14 May 2008 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Court of Cassation decided, on the basis of the available evidence, not to initiate criminal proceedings against the two prosecutors on the ground that no offence had been committed. It held that although insufficiently reasoned, the examination of the merits of the case by the Bârlad prosecutor’s office had been accurate. In addition, it noted that those events which had taken place after 19 January 2005 had not been known at the time and therefore had not been investigated. Consequently, it referred the case to the Bârlad prosecutor’s office in order for it to investigate the applicant’s parents for the alleged deprivation of the applicant’s liberty in the period between 19 January and 10 October 2005. The applicant challenged the decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor. 67. By a final decision of 25 June 2008, the head prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s challenge as ill-founded. The applicant appealed against that decision before the domestic courts. 68. By a decision of 11 November 2008, the Bârlad prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s action concerning the alleged deprivation of her liberty by her parents in the period between 19 January and 10 October 2005. It held that the applicant’s complaint had already been dismissed in the final judgments of 14 February and 11 April 2008 in accordance with the relevant rules of criminal procedure, and in the absence of any new relevant information the criminal proceedings could not be reopened or reinitiated. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against that decision before the domestic courts. 69. By a judgment of 21 January 2009, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 25 June 2008 as ill-founded. It held that there was no evidence suggesting that the prosecutors had committed an offence, or that the decisions taken by them had been unlawful. The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment. 70. By a final judgment of 6 July 2009, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal as time-barred. 71. The applicant submitted to the Court a large number of press articles, photographs and transcripts of television talk-shows concerning the conduct of the leader of MISA, the criminal investigation against him, the applicant’s conflict with her parents, and the measures and efforts undertaken by her parents to reconnect with her. 72. By a decision of 13 April 2006 the Romanian Council for Combating Discrimination dismissed the applicant’s complaint that the actions of her parents and Dr I. had amounted to discrimination on the basis of her beliefs. It held that the facts of the applicant’s case did not indicate discrimination. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant challenged that decision before the domestic courts.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

11. Mrs Anca Mocanu and Mr Marin Stoica were born in 1970 and 1948 respectively. They live in Bucharest. 12. The Association “21 December 1989” (Asociaţia 21 Decembrie 1989) was set up on 9 February 1990 and is based in Bucharest. 13. The applicant association brings together mainly individuals who were injured during the violent suppression of the anti-totalitarian demonstrations which took place in Romania in December 1989 and the relatives of persons who died during those events. It was one of the groups which supported the anti-government demonstrations held in Bucharest between April and June 1990, at which demonstrators called, inter alia, for the identification of those responsible for the violence committed in December 1989. 14. The main facts concerning the crackdown on anti-government demonstrations from 13 to 15 June 1990 were described in the decisions of 16 September 1998 (see paragraphs 99-110 below) and 17 June 2009 (see paragraphs 152-63 below), issued by the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice (which in 2003 became the High Court of Cassation and Justice), and in the decisions to commit for trial (rechizitoriu) issued by the same prosecutor’s office on 18 May 2000 and 27 July 2007. 15. On 13 June 1990 the security forces’ intervention against the demonstrators who were occupying University Square and other areas of the capital resulted in several civilian casualties, including Mrs Mocanu’s husband, Mr Mocanu, who was killed by a shot fired from the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior. 16. On the evening of 13 June 1990 Mr Stoica and other persons, some but not all of whom were demonstrators, were arrested and ill-treated by uniformed police officers and men in civilian clothing, in the area around the headquarters of the State television service and in the basement of that building. 17. On 14 June 1990 thousands of miners were transported to Bucharest, essentially from the Jiu Valley (Valea Jiului) mining region, to take part in the crackdown on the demonstrators. 18. At 6.30 a.m. on 14 June 1990 the President of Romania addressed the miners, who had arrived in the square in front of the Government building, inviting them to go to University Square, occupy it and defend it against the demonstrators; they subsequently did so. 19. The violent events of 13 and 14 June 1990 resulted in more than a thousand victims, whose names appear in a list attached to the decision issued on 29 April 2008 by the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 20. The headquarters of several political parties and other institutions, including those of the applicant association, were attacked and ransacked. The latter association subsequently joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party. 21. The criminal proceedings into the unlawful killing by gunfire of Mr Velicu-Valentin Mocanu are still pending. The investigation opened on 13 June 1990 into the ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on Mr Stoica was closed by a decision not to bring a prosecution, dated 17 June 2009, subsequently upheld by a judgment of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of 9 March 2011. 22. The facts as set out by the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice in its decisions of 16 September 1998 and 17 June 2009 and in the decisions to commit for trial of 18 May 2000 and 27 July 2007 may be summarised as follows. 23. University Square in Bucharest was considered a symbolic location for the fight against the totalitarian regime of Nicolae Ceauşescu, given the large number of persons who had died or were injured there as a result of the armed repression initiated by the regime on 21 December 1989. It was therefore in this square that several associations – including the applicant association – called on their members to attend protest events in the first months of 1990. 24. Thus, the first demonstrations against the provisional government formed after the fall of the Ceauşescu regime took place in University Square in Bucharest on 12 and 24 January 1990, as indicated in the decision issued on 17 June 2009 by the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. That decision also states that a counter-demonstration was organised by the National Salvation Front (Frontul Salvării Naţionale – the FSN) on 29 January 1990. On that occasion, miners from the coal-mining regions of the Jiu Valley, Maramureş and other areas appeared in Bucharest. The headquarters of the National Liberal Party were vandalised at that time. 25. From 25 February 1990, demonstrations were held every Sunday. According to the decision to commit for trial of 27 July 2007, they were intended to denounce the non-democratic attitude of those in power, who were accused of having “betrayed the ideals of the revolution”, and sought to alert the population to the threat of a new dictatorial regime. 26. Election campaigns were subsequently launched for parliamentary elections and the office of President of the Republic, to be held on 20 May 1990. 27. It was in this context that unauthorised “marathon demonstrations” (manifestaţii maraton) began on 22 April 1990 in University Square, at the initiative of the Students’ League and other associations, including the applicant association. These demonstrations lasted fifty-two days, during which the demonstrators occupied University Square. The decisions of 16 September 1998 and 17 June 2009 indicate that the demonstrators, who had gathered in large numbers, were not violent and were essentially demanding that persons who had exercised power during the totalitarian regime be excluded from political life. They also called for a politically independent television station. 28. They called further for the identification of those responsible for the armed repression of December 1989 and demanded the resignation of the country’s leaders (particularly the Minister of the Interior), whom they considered responsible for the repression of the anti-communist demonstrations in December 1989. 29. On 22 April 1990 fourteen demonstrators were arrested by the police on the ground that the demonstration had not been authorised. Faced with the reaction of the public, who had arrived to boost the number of demonstrators in University Square, the police released the fourteen arrested demonstrators. The authorities did not use force again over the following days, although the Bucharest City Council had still not authorised the gathering. 30. Negotiations between the demonstrators and the provisional government resulted in stalemate. 31. On 20 May 1990 the presidential and parliamentary elections took place. The FSN and its leader, who was standing for President, won the elections. 32. Following those elections the protests continued in University Square, but were reduced from their original scale. Of the approximately 260 persons still present, 118 had gone on hunger strike. 33. On the evening of 11 June 1990 the new President elect of Romania and his Prime Minister convened a government meeting, attended by the Minister of the Interior and his deputy, the Minister of Defence, the director of the Romanian Intelligence Service (Serviciul Român de Informaţii – the SRI), the first deputy president of the ruling party (the FSN) and the Procurator General of Romania. This is established in the prosecution service’s decisions of 16 September 1998 and 17 June 2009. 34. At that meeting it was decided to take measures to clear University Square on 13 June 1990. In addition, it was proposed that the State organs, namely the police and army, would be assisted by some 5,000 mobilised civilians. Implementation of this measure was entrusted to the first deputy president of the FSN. Two members of that party’s steering committee opposed the measure, but without success. According to the decision of 17 June 2009, an action plan drawn up by General C. was approved by the Prime Minister. 35. On the same evening the Procurator General’s Office (Procuratura Generală) broadcast a statement on State television calling on the government to take measures so that vehicles could circulate again in University Square. 36. At a meeting held on the same evening with the participation of the Minister of the Interior, the head of the SRI and the head of police, General D.C. set out the plans for the police and gendarmerie, in collaboration with civilian forces, to clear University Square. Under this plan, the action was “to begin at 4 a.m. on 13 June 1990 by cordoning off the square, arresting the demonstrators and re-establishing public order”. 37. At about 4.30 a.m. on 13 June 1990 members of the police and gendarmerie brutally charged the demonstrators in University Square. The arrested demonstrators were driven away and locked up at the Bucharest municipal police station. The 263 arrested individuals (or 262, according to the decision to commit for trial of 18 May 2000) included students from the Architecture Institute, who had been on the premises of their establishment, located on University Square, and who had not taken part in the demonstrations. The decision of 17 June 2009 indicated that the 263 persons who had been arrested were taken to the Măgurele barracks after being held in the police cells. 38. The police operation led to protests by many people, who demanded that the arrested demonstrators be released. According to the decision of 16 September 1998, those persons launched violent attacks on the security forces, hurling projectiles and setting cars on fire. According to the decision to commit for trial of 18 May 2000, those actions were the work of a few aggressive individuals who had infiltrated groups of peaceful demonstrators. 39. At about 10 a.m., workers from the factories of a large metallurgical company in Bucharest (IMGB) headed en masse for University Square to help the police arrest the demonstrators. According to the decision of 16 September 1998, they acted in a chaotic and heavy-handed manner, hitting out blindly and making no distinction between demonstrators and mere passers-by. 40. On the afternoon of 13 June 1990, the demonstrations intensified around the television building, University Square, the Ministry of the Interior and the municipal police station, all locations where, according to the demonstrators, the persons who had been arrested could be held prisoner. 41. Following those incidents, the army intervened and several armoured vehicles were sent to the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior. 42. According to a report by the Ministry of the Interior, referred to by the Government in their observations, at about 6 p.m. the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior were surrounded by between 4,000 and 5,000 demonstrators; on the orders of Generals A.G. and C.M., servicemen posted inside the Ministry fired at the ceilings of the entrance halls with a view to dispersing the demonstrators. 43. Three persons were killed by the shots fired in the Ministry of the Interior. 44. It was in those circumstances that, at about 6 p.m., when he was a few metres away from one of the doors of the Ministry, the first applicant’s husband was killed by a bullet which hit the back of his head after having ricocheted. Those events are described in detail in the decisions of 18 May 2000 and 27 July 2007 committing for trial the Minister of the Interior at the relevant time, a general and three colonels. According to the first decision to commit for trial, the applicant’s husband and the other victims, who were returning from their workplaces on that day, were unarmed and had not previously taken part in the marathon demonstrations in University Square. Mere spectators of the events, they had been killed by bullets which had ricocheted. 45. The security forces shot and killed a fourth person in another district of Bucharest. Another died shortly after having been stabbed in the area around the television headquarters. 46. On 13 June 1990 no servicemen were subjected to violence by the demonstrators, as attested by the decision to commit for trial of 27 July 2007. According to that document, the army had fired 1,466 bullets from inside the Ministry of the Interior headquarters on that date. 47. In addition, other persons, including Mr Stoica, were beaten and detained by police officers and civilians in the headquarters of the State television station, in the circumstances described below. 48. The headquarters of the State television station were at that time guarded by 82 servicemen, backed by 14 armed vehicles, and subsequently reinforced by other groups of armed forces, the largest of which contained 156 servicemen (who arrived at 7 p.m.), a detachment of parachutists (7.30 p.m.), 646 servicemen (8 p.m.), 118 parachutists (11 p.m.) and 360 servicemen with 13 other armed vehicles (11 p.m.). 49. At about 1 a.m. the demonstrators were chased out of the television headquarters following this mass intervention. 50. Towards the end of the afternoon on 13 June 1990, while he was walking to his workplace along a street near the State television headquarters, the applicant was brutally arrested by a group of armed individuals and taken by force into the television building. In sight of the police officers and servicemen present, civilians struck and bound him, then took him to the basement of the building. He was then led into a television studio, where several dozen other persons were already present. They were filmed in the presence of the then director of the State television station. The recordings were broadcast during the night of 13 to 14 June 1990, accompanied by commentary which described the persons concerned as employees of foreign secret services who had threatened to destroy the television premises and equipment. 51. In the course of the same night the applicant was beaten, struck on the head with blunt objects and threatened with firearms until he lost consciousness. 52. He woke up at around 4.30 a.m. in the Floreasca Hospital in Bucharest. According to the forensic medical report drawn up on 18 October 2002, the medical certificate issued by the hospital’s emergency surgery department stated that the applicant had been admitted at about 4.30 a.m. on 14 June 1990 and diagnosed as suffering from bruising on the left side of the abdomen and ribcage, abrasions on the left side of his ribcage resulting from an assault, and craniocerebral trauma. 53. Fearing further ill-treatment, he fled from the hospital, which was surrounded by police officers, at about 6.30 a.m. 54. His identity papers had been confiscated during the night of 13 to 14 June 1990. Three months later he was invited to collect them from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations at the General Inspectorate of Police. In the meantime, he had remained shut away at home for fear of being arrested again, tortured and imprisoned. 55. According to the decision of 16 September 1998, witness M.I., an engineer, who at the relevant time was head of department at the Craiova agency of the national railway company (Regionala CFR Craiova), had stated that, on the evening of 13 June 1990, the director of that agency had ordered that the scheduled trains be cancelled and that 4 train convoys, or a total of 57 wagons, be made available to the miners at Petroşani station, in the heart of the Jiu Valley mining area. 56. M.I. had added that the order seemed to him unlawful and that he had attempted to prevent the miners’ transportation to Bucharest by cutting the electricity provision to the railway line on the journey indicated. He had stated that, faced with his insubordination, the director of the Craiova CFR agency had ordered that he be replaced and had the railway line restored to use by about 9 p.m. It appears that M.I. was subsequently dismissed and brought before the prosecution service. 57. According to the decision issued on 10 March 2009 by the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, on 14 June 1990 11 trains – a total of 120 wagons – transporting workers, especially miners, had travelled to Bucharest from several industrial regions around the country. The first had reached Bucharest at 3.45 a.m., the last at 7.08 p.m. 58. The decision of 16 September 1998 states that the miners had been informed that they were to help the police re-establish public order in Bucharest, and that they were armed with axes, chains, sticks and metal cables. 59. The decision of 10 March 2009 indicates that the miners had been mobilised by the leaders of their trade union. Questioned as a witness, the President of the Federation of Miners’ Unions, who became mayor of Lupeni in 1998, stated that 5 trains carrying the miners had arrived at Bucharest station at about 1 a.m. on 14 June 1990, that the miners had been greeted by the deputy Minister for Mines and a Director General from that Ministry, and that these two senior government officials had led them to University Square. 60. On the morning of 14 June 1990, groups of miners first stopped at Victory Square (Piaţa Victoriei), at the government headquarters. 61. At about 6.30 a.m., the Head of State addressed the miners who were gathered in front of the government building, inviting them to cooperate with the security forces and to restore order in University Square and in other areas where incidents had occurred. In this speech, which is reproduced in full in the decision of 17 June 2009, he urged them to head towards University Square and occupy it, informing them that they would be confronted with “openly fascist elements who had committed acts of vandalism” by setting fire to the headquarters of both the Ministry of the Interior and of the police and “besieging the television building”. 62. Immediately afterwards groups of miners were led “by unidentified persons” to the headquarters of opposition parties and associations perceived as hostile to the authorities. 63. The miners were flanked by troops from the Ministry of the Interior, with whom they formed “mixed teams”, and set out to look for demonstrators. The decision of 17 June 2009 indicates that “acts of extreme cruelty [took place] on this occasion, with violence being used indiscriminately against demonstrators and Bucharest residents who were totally unconnected with the demonstrations”. The decision of 10 March 2009 indicates that the miners also attacked the homes of persons of Roma ethnicity. According to that decision, the miners had “selection criteria” for identifying those persons who, in their opinion, were suspected of taking part in the University Square demonstrations, and attacked “as a general rule, Roma, students, intellectuals, journalists and anyone who did not recognise their legitimacy”. 64. The groups of miners and the other persons accompanying them ransacked the headquarters of the National Farmers’ Party (Partidul Naţional Ţărănesc Creştin şi Democrat) and the National Liberal Party, and the headquarters of other legal entities, such as the Association of Former Political Prisoners (Asociaţia Foştilor Deţinuţi Politici), the League for the Protection of Human Rights (Liga pentru Apărarea Drepturilor Omului) and the Association “21 December 1989” (the applicant association). 65. According to the decision of 16 September 1998, no one present in the headquarters of those political parties and associations at that time was spared by the miners. All were attacked and had their possessions confiscated. Many were apprehended and handed over to the police – who were there “as though by coincidence” – and detained in an entirely unlawful manner. 66. Other groups of miners had gone to University Square. On arrival, they broke into the University premises and the Architecture Institute, located on University Square. They attacked the staff and students whom they encountered there, subjecting them to violence and humiliating acts. The miners apprehended everyone on the premises and handed them over to the police and gendarmes. The arrested persons were taken by the law-enforcement officers to police stations or to the Băneasa and Măgurele military barracks. 67. The miners then moved into the streets surrounding University Square and continued their activities there. 68. According to the decision of 17 June 2009, 1,021 individuals – including 63 who were then under age – were apprehended in those circumstances. Of those individuals, 182 of them were placed in pre-trial detention, 88 received an administrative penalty and 706 were released “after checks”. 69. The decision of 16 September 1998 states that “the miners [ended] their law-enforcement activities on 15 June 1990, after the President of Romania had thanked them publicly for what they had done in the capital, and authorised them to return to their work”. 70. That decision also indicates that some of those who were beaten and imprisoned were unlawfully detained for several days and that several of them were released on 19 and 20 June 1990. 71. The other persons in police custody were placed in pre-trial detention, on a decision by the prosecutor, for causing a breach of the peace; their number included the current president of the applicant association, who was subsequently acquitted of all the charges against him. 72. The decision of 17 June 2009 states that the miners acted in close collaboration with the security forces and on the instructions of the State’s leaders. The relevant passages read as follows: “On 14 and 15 June 1990 the miners, in groups coordinated by civilians on behalf of and with the agreement of the State’s leaders [în numele şi cu acordul conducerii de stat], committed acts in which the State’s law-enforcement forces fully collaborated [deplină cooperare] and which caused not only physical harm to the persons who were apprehended for checks, but also significant damage to the premises of the University of Bucharest, the Architecture Institute, several political parties and civilian associations, and the homes of figures from so-called ‘historical’ parties ... The investigations conducted by the military prosecutors have not permitted identification of the persons in civilian clothing who had infiltrated the miners’ groups; the victims who were questioned had distinguished between the miners and their other attackers by describing the first as ‘dirty miners’ and the second as ‘clean miners’. 73. On 13 June 1990 the applicant association publicly condemned the violent interventions of the same day. 74. At about 11 p.m. the leaders of the association decided, as a security measure, to spend the night in its headquarters. Seven of them remained there during the night. 75. At 7 a.m. on 14 June 1990, a group of miners forcibly entered the applicant association’s premises after breaking a window pane. In the first few minutes after entering they were not violent, and were rather reserved. Shortly afterwards an unidentified civilian, who was not a miner, arrived on the scene and began hitting one of the members of the association. The miners followed his lead, brutally attacking the seven members of the association, who were then arrested by the security forces. 76. During that day all of the association’s property and documents were seized, in breach of the legal formalities, under the supervision of troops from the Ministry of Defence. 77. On 22 June 1990 the leaders of the association were able to return to the association’s premises, accompanied by the police. 78. The above-cited decisions of the prosecutor’s office indicate that, instead of immediately returning to their homes, 958 miners remained in Bucharest, “ready to intervene should the protests recommence”, notably with a view to the impending swearing-in of the newly elected President. From 16 to 19 June 1990 those miners were accommodated in military barracks in Bucharest, where they received military uniforms. 79. The decision of 16 September 1998 indicates that the investigation was unable to elucidate who had given the order to house and equip the miners, but specifies that “such a measure had to have been taken at least at Ministry of Defence level”. 80. According to a press release issued by the Ministry of Health on 15 June 1990 and reproduced in the decision of 17 June 2009, during the period between 13 June and 6 a.m. on 15 June 1990, 467 persons went to hospital following the violent incidents; 112 were kept in hospital and 5 deaths were recorded. 81. According to the same decision of 17 June 2009, police officers, miners and later the military conscripts responsible for supervising the miners used excessive force against the 574 demonstrators and the other persons – including children, elderly persons and blind people – who had been arrested and detained in the Măgurele military barracks. The decision states that the detainees on those premises were subjected to violence and assaults of a “psychological, physical and sexual” nature and held in inappropriate conditions, and that they received belated and inadequate medical care. 82. The violent events of June 1990, in the course of which the husband of the applicant Anca Mocanu was killed and Mr Stoica was allegedly ill-treated, and which resulted in the ransacking of the applicant association’s headquarters, gave rise to the opening of an investigation. It was initially divided up into several hundred different case files. 83. On 29 May 2009 the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice sent a letter to the Government’s Agent, in which the facts were summarised as follows: “Over the period from 1990 to 1997, hundreds of complaints were registered on the rolls of the prosecutor’s office at the Bucharest County Court and the district prosecutor’s offices concerning the offences of theft, destruction, armed robbery, assault causing bodily harm, unlawful deprivation of liberty and other offences committed in the context of the acts of violence committed by miners in Bucharest on 14 and 15 June 1990. In the majority of those cases, it having proved impossible to identify the perpetrators, a decision was issued not to bring a prosecution.” 84. No decision to discontinue the proceedings was communicated to Mrs Mocanu or to the applicant association, which had joined the proceedings as a civil party. 85. Those case files were subsequently joined and the scope of the investigation was broadened from 1997 onwards, the events having been given a different legal classification involving aggravated criminal responsibility. Senior army officers and State officials were successively charged and the entire investigation was transferred to the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice (Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea Supremă de Justiţie – Secţia Parchetelor Militare) as case no. 160/P/1997. 86. Between 22 October 1997 and 27 October 1999, 183 previously opened cases were joined to case no. 160/P/1997, of which 46 were joined on 22 October 1997, 90 on 16 September 1998 and 69 on 22 October 1999. 87. On 26 June 2000 the same military prosecutor’s section was assigned 748 cases concerning the events of 13 to 15 June 1990, including, in particular, the unlawful deprivations of liberty on 13 June 1990. 88. In the decision of 17 June 2009, the state of the file as it existed after the joinder of all those cases is described as follows: “Many of the documents included in the 250 volumes of the file are photocopies which have not been stamped or have not been certified as corresponding to the original. The documents in each of those volumes are not filed by date, subject or another criterion, but in a disorderly fashion. Some of them have nothing to do with the case (for example, volume 150 contains files concerning disappearances which occurred after June 1990). ...” 89. On 16 September 1998 case no. 160/P/1997 was split into four cases and the subsequent investigation was assigned to the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice. 90. On 8 January 2001 three of those four cases were joined. After that date the investigation focused on two main cases. 91. The first concerned charges of incitement to or participation in aggravated unlawful killing, particularly that of Velicu-Valentin Mocanu. The persons accused of that offence were the President of Romania at the relevant time and five senior army officers, including the Minister of the Interior. 92. The decision of 19 June 2007to bring charges, and the subsequent decision of 19 July 2007 to sever the charges, state that, on orders from the then President, on the evening of 13 June and the night of 13 to 14 June 1990 the security forces and army personnel used their weapons and heavy ammunition against demonstrators, killing four persons, injuring three others and endangering the lives of other persons. 93. The charges against the former President were subsequently severed from those against the other defendants, who were high-ranking military officers, and a decision to discontinue proceedings against him was issued. 94. At 2 October 2013 this first branch of the investigation was still pending in respect of two of the officers in question, the three others having died in the meantime. 95. The other case concerning the events of June 1990, which investigated, in particular, the criminal complaint for violence lodged by Mr Stoica and the ransacking of the applicant association’s premises, concerned charges of incitement to commit or participation in acts of sedition (subminarea puterii de stat), sabotage (actele de diversiune), inhuman treatment (tratamentele neomenoase), propaganda in favour of war (propaganda pentru război) and genocide, within the meaning of Article 357 (a) to (c) of the Criminal Code. 96. The persons accused of those acts were the former President, several high-ranking officers and dozens of civilians. Proceedings were brought in respect of these charges against the former President on 9 September 2005 and against the former head of the SRI on 12 June 2006. 97. This second branch of the investigation was closed by a decision not to bring a prosecution, adopted on 17 June 2009. That decision was upheld by a judgment delivered on 9 March 2011 by the High Court of Cassation and Justice following an appeal by Mr Stoica. 98. The main stages of the investigation are described below. 99. On 16 September 1998 the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice issued its decision in case no. 160/P/1997, following an investigation concerning sixty-three persons who had been victims of violence and unlawful arrests, including Mrs Mocanu and three members of the applicant association, as well as the applicant association itself and eleven other legal entities whose premises had been ransacked during the events of 13 to 15 June 1990. 100. Of the sixty-three victims listed in the table contained in the decision of 16 September 1998, three had been assaulted and deprived of their liberty at the headquarters of the State television station. In the final column, indicating the stage reached in the investigations, the table notes that “the case has not been investigated” (cauza nu este cercetată) in respect of those three persons. 101. In its decision, the military section of the prosecutor’s office indicated that other complaints were pending before the civilian prosecutors’ offices. 102. It added that its decision also concerned “the presumed unlawful killing of about one hundred individuals during the events of 13 to 15 June 1990, [whose corpses] were allegedly incinerated or buried in common graves in cemeteries in villages near Bucharest (notably Străuleşti)”. 103. It also indicated that, to date, the investigation had been unable to identify the persons who had implemented in practice the executive’s decision to summon civilians to restore order in Bucharest. According to the prosecution service, this failing in the investigation was due to the “fact that none of the persons who held posts of responsibility at the relevant time [had] been questioned”, particularly the then President of Romania, the Prime Minister and his deputy, the Minister of the Interior, the head of the police, the director of the SRI and the Minister of Defence. 104. In its decision, the military section ordered that the case be split into four separate case files. 105. The first of those files was to focus on the continued investigation into the unlawful killing by gunfire of four civilians, including the first applicant’s husband. 106. The second file targeted those persons who had exercised functions pertaining to civilian and military command. The authorities decided to pursue the investigation in respect of them, in particular for abuse of power against the public interest entailing serious consequences, an offence punishable under Article 248 § 2 of the Criminal Code, and also to investigate the fact that one social group had been enlisted alongside the security forces to combat other social groups. 107. The third file concerned the continuing investigations into the possible existence of other victims who had been killed during the violent incidents of 13 to 15 June 1990 (see paragraph 102 above). 108. Lastly, considering that the prosecution was statute-barred, the military section of the prosecutor’s office decided to discontinue the proceedings against unidentified members of the security forces and groups of miners in respect of the offences of armed robbery, unlawful deprivation of liberty, abusive conduct, improper investigation, abuse of power against private interests, assault, actual bodily harm, destruction of property, theft, breaking and entering homes, malfeasance and rape, committed between 13 and 15 June 1990. 109. This part of the decision of 16 September 1998 was set aside in a decision issued on 14 October 1999 by the head of the military section of the prosecutor’s office (Şeful Secţiei Parchetelor Militare) at the Supreme Court of Justice, which ordered that the proceedings and investigations intended to identify all the victims be resumed, specifying in that respect that it had been established that the number of victims greatly exceeded that of the injured parties listed in the impugned decision. 110. In addition, the decision of 14 October 1999 noted that the investigators had so far failed to conduct investigations into the “known collusion” between the Ministry of the Interior and the leaders of the mining companies “with a view to organising a veritable apparatus of unlawful repression”, that collusion having been established, according to the decision by the evidence contained in the case file. 111. After the decision of 16 September 1998, the investigations into the unlawful killing of Mr Velicu-Valentin Mocanu continued under case no. 74/P/1998 (see paragraph 105 above). 112. Mrs Mocanu and the two children she had had with the victim joined the proceedings as civil parties. 113. Two generals – the former Minister of the Interior and his deputy – and three senior-ranking officials were charged with the unlawful killings committed on 13 June 1990, including that of the applicant’s husband, on 12, 18 and 21 January and 23 February 2000 respectively. 114. All five were committed for trial on the basis of a decision to that effect (rechizitoriu) of 18 May 2000, on the ground that they had called for – and, in the case of the two generals, ordered – the opening of fire with heavy ammunition, an act which resulted in the death of four individuals and which caused serious injury to nine other persons. 115. By a decision of 30 June 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice remitted the case to the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice for additional investigation intended to remedy various deficiencies, and reclassified the offence as participation in aggravated unlawful killing. It also ordered a series of investigative measures to be taken. 116. Mrs Mocanu, other civil parties and the military section of the prosecutor’s office appealed against that decision on points of law. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice (as the Supreme Court of Justice was renamed in 2003, see paragraph 14 above) in a judgment of 16 February 2004. 117. After the investigation was resumed, the proceedings against the five defendants were discontinued by a decision of 14 October 2005. That decision having been overturned on 10 September 2006, the proceedings were reopened. 118. After carrying out an additional investigation in line with the instructions set out in the judgment of 30 June 2003, the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice committed the former Minister of the Interior, his deputy and two other senior army officers for trial in a decision to that effect of 27 July 2007. It discontinued proceedings against the fifth officer, who had died in the meantime. According to the decision to commit for trial, “the lack of reaction by the public authorities” and the lack of an immediate effective investigation “[had] endangered the very existence of democracy and the rule of law”. 119. By a judgment of 17 December 2007, the High Court of Cassation and Justice ordered that the case be sent back to the military section of the prosecutor’s office for a breach of procedural rules, primarily on the ground that criminal proceedings against a former minister could only be brought through a special procedure requiring prior authorisation by Parliament. 120. On 15 April 2008 the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision, but this was dismissed on 23 June 2008. 121. On 30 April 2009 the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice stated that it did not have jurisdiction to examine this branch of the case, mainly because members of the police force – including the Minister of the Interior – had become civil servants following a legislative amendment, and the military courts and prosecutors thus no longer had jurisdiction over their criminal acts, even where those had been committed while they were still military officers. It therefore relinquished jurisdiction to one of the ordinary criminal sections of the same prosecutor’s office, namely the Criminal Proceedings and Criminalistics Section (Secţia de urmărire penală şi criminalistică). 122. By a decision of 6 June 2013, that Section discontinued the proceedings against the former minister and his deputy, both of whom had died on 2 November 2010 and 4 February 2013 respectively. 123. By the same decision, the same Section of the prosecutor’s office declared that it did not have jurisdiction in respect of the last two surviving defendants, Colonels C.V. and C.D., and referred their cases to the military prosecutor’s office at the Bucharest regional military court. 124. This investigation was pending before that prosecutor’s office on 2 October 2013. 125. This part of the investigation concerned the charges against the former President of the Romanian Republic with regard to the victims who were killed or injured by gunshots fired by the army on 13 June 1990. 126. The former President of Romania, in office from 1989 to 1996 and from 2000 to 2004, was charged on 19 June 2007, by which date he was exercising the functions of senator and was a member of parliament. He was accused of having “deliberately incited servicemen to use force against the demonstrators in University Square and in other districts of the capital, an act which resulted in the death or injury by gunfire of several persons”. Those facts were characterised as participation lato sensu in aggravated unlawful killing, a crime punishable under Articles 174, 175 (e) and 176 (b) of the Criminal Code, taken together with Article 31 § 2 of that Code. 127. On 19 July 2007 those charges were severed from case no. 74/P/1998. The investigation continued under case no. 107/P/2007. 128. In the meantime, on 20 June 2007 the Constitutional Court, ruling in a case unrelated to the present one, had delivered a judgment ruling that the military courts did not have jurisdiction to judge or prosecute civilian defendants. In consequence, by a decision of 20 July 2007 the military section of the prosecutor’s office held that it did not have jurisdiction to examine case no. 107/P/2007 and relinquished jurisdiction to one of the ordinary criminal sections. 129. On 7 December 2007 the Procurator General of Romania set aside, for procedural errors, the indictment of 19 June 2007, and ordered that the investigation be resumed. 130. By a decision of 10 October 2008, the Criminal Proceedings and Criminalistics Section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice issued a decision not to bring a prosecution, on the ground that there was no causal link between the order to clear University Square issued by the former President and the decision taken by three officers, with the agreement of their superiors – General A. and General C. (Minister of the Interior) – to give the order to open fire on the demonstrators. In so ruling, the prosecutor’s office held that the objectives of the action plan drawn up on 12 June 1990 had been fulfilled by 9 a.m. on the following morning, and that the following events, including the subsequent orders to open fire, had had nothing to do with that plan and could not have been foreseen by those who prepared it. 131. On 3 November 2008 Mrs Mocanu and other injured parties challenged this decision not to bring a prosecution. 132. On 18 December 2009 a three-judge bench of the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed their appeals, finding them inadmissible, out of time or unfounded, depending on the case. It concluded that there was no causal link between the acts imputed to the former President and the unpredictable consequences of the demonstrations which had resulted in the deaths of several persons. Moreover, it noted that three of the injured parties – widows or relatives of the victims who died on 13 and 14 June 1990 –, including Mrs Mocanu, had stated at a hearing on 11 December 2009 that they did not intend to challenge the decision not to bring a prosecution in respect of the former President and that they wished only that those responsible for the unlawful killings be identified and that they be held liable. Following an appeal on points of law by the civil parties, that decision was upheld by a nine-judge bench of the High Court in a judgment of 25 October 2010. 133. According to the forensic autopsy report carried out on Mrs Mocanu’s husband, he died as a result of gunshot wounds inflicted by a third party. 134. The applicant made her first specific request to join the proceedings as a civil party on 11 December 2000. On the same date the applicant and the other civil parties – relatives of the three other persons who had been killed during the events of 13 and 14 June 1990 – filed joint pleadings containing their observations as to the identity of those responsible for the deaths of their relatives, and their claims for compensation. 135. On 14 February 2007 the applicant was questioned for the first time by the prosecutor’s office for the purposes of the investigation. Assisted by a lawyer of her own choice, she stated that her husband had not returned home on the evening of 13 June 1990, that this had worried her, that she had searched for him the following day without success, and that she had subsequently learned from the press that he had been killed by a shot to the head. No investigator or official representative had visited her, nor had she been summoned for the purposes of the investigation; only a few journalists had come to see her. She stated that, aged 20 and without employment at the relevant time, since her husband’s death she had raised their two children, a daughter of two months (born in April 1990) and a two-year-old son, alone. 136. The documents in the file submitted to the Court do not indicate whether Mrs Mocanu was kept informed about developments in the investigation into the aggravated unlawful killing of her husband following the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s judgment of 17 December 2007 ordering that the case be remitted to the prosecutor’s office. 137. Between 26 November 1997 and 12 June 2006, criminal proceedings were brought against 37 persons – 28 civilians and 9 servicemen – essentially for acts of sedition committed in the course of the events of June 1990. The former President of Romania was among those prosecuted. He was charged on 9 June 2005 with participation in genocide (paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Article 357 of the Criminal Code), propaganda in favour of war (Article 356), inhuman treatment (Article 358), sedition (Article 162) and acts of sabotage (Article 163). The vast majority of the 28 civilians charged were directors of mining companies, heads of miners’ trade unions and senior civil servants in the Ministry of Mines. 138. On 16 September 1998 this branch of the investigation was allocated the file number 75/P/1998 (see paragraph 106 above). 139. On 19 December 2007 the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice ordered that the case in file no. 75/P/1998 be split into two parts, one concerning the criminal charges against the 28 civilians, including the former President of Romania and the former head of the SRI, and the other concerning the charges against the 9 servicemen. The investigation with regard to the 28 civilians was to be pursued before the relevant civilian section of the same prosecutor’s office. 140. By a decision of 27 February 2008, the head prosecutor in the military section of the prosecutor’s office set aside the decision of 19 December 2007, finding that, given the close connection between the events, a single prosecutor’s office, namely the relevant civilian section, was to examine the entirety of the case in respect of all of the defendants, both civilians and servicemen. 141. In line with that decision, on 29 April 2008 the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice also relinquished jurisdiction to the relevant civilian section for examination of the criminal charges against the 9 servicemen – including several generals, the former head of police and the former Minister of the Interior. 142. The decision of 29 April 2008 contained a list of more than a thousand victims who had been held and subjected to ill-treatment, notably on the premises of the Băneasa Officers’ School and the Măgurele military unit. Mr Stoica was included in this list of victims. The decision also contained a list of the legal entities which had sustained damage during the crackdown of 13 to 15 June 1990, including the applicant association. 143. That decision also referred to “identification of the approximately 100 persons who died during the events of 13 to 15 June 1990”. 144. It also contained a list of the State-owned companies which had provided workers for the intervention in Bucharest. That list included, in particular, twenty mining companies from all around the country and factories in eleven towns (Călăraşi, Alexandria, Alba-Iulia, Craiova, Constanţa, Deva, Giurgiu, Galaţi, Braşov, Slatina and Buzău), as well as three factories in Bucharest. 145. Following that decision, on 5 May 2008 the military section of the prosecutor’s office sent the 209 volumes, containing a total of some 50,000 pages, from case no. 75/P/1998 to the relevant civilian section of the prosecutor’s office. 146. On 26 May 2008 the section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice which had received the entire file, namely the Criminal Proceedings and Criminalistics Section, stated that it did not have jurisdiction, and relinquished jurisdiction to another section of the same prosecutor’s office, namely the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism (Direcţia de Investigare a Infracţiunilor de Criminalitate Organizată şi Terorism – DIICOT). 147. By a decision of 10 March 2009, the relevant directorate of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, namely the DIICOT, decided that no prosecution would be brought against the former head of the SRI on the charge of sedition, as that offence had become time-barred, and that no prosecution would be brought against the majority of the 27 civilian defendants – directors of mining companies, heads of miners’ trade unions, senior civil servants at the Ministry of Mines and in local government – on the ground that the constituent elements of the offence had not been made out. 148. In so ruling, the prosecutor’s office considered that, in their respective capacities as Head of State, Minister of the Interior, deputy minister or Head of Police, some of the defendants exercised State authority, and it would have been illogical to think that they could have committed acts capable of undermining their own power. As to the miners and other workers who had travelled to Bucharest on 14 June 1990, the prosecutor’s office considered that they had “turned themselves into security forces” and been persuaded that their actions served State power. In addition, it noted that their intervention had been pointless, since the operation conducted by the parachutists at the television headquarters had enabled order to be restored in the capital at about 1 a.m. on 14 June 1990. 149. The prosecution also discontinued the proceedings against three of the defendants, who had died in the meantime. 150. Lastly, the DIICOT decided to relinquish jurisdiction to the Criminal Proceedings and Criminalistics Section with regard to the remainder of the case, namely the charges of inhuman treatment, propaganda in favour of war and genocide, within the meaning of Article 357 (a) to (c) of the Criminal Code. Those facts concerned only nine of the persons who had been charged during the period 2000-06, including the former president. 151. On 17 June 2009 a decision was taken not to bring a prosecution in respect of those charges; its content is set out below. 152. On 17 June 2009 the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice issued a decision not to bring a prosecution in the case, concerning essentially charges of inhuman treatment arising from 856 complaints by persons injured as a result of the violence committed from 13 to 15 June 1990. 153. The decision in question indicated that the former Head of State had not been examined as a defendant in the course of the investigation. 154. It gave a comprehensive description of the violence – classified as extreme cruelty – inflicted on several hundred persons. 155. It was indicated that the investigations conducted over approximately nineteen years by the civilian prosecutor’s offices and, subsequently, by the military prosecuting authorities, had not made it possible to establish the identity of the perpetrators or the degree of involvement of the security forces. The relevant passage from the decision reads as follows: “The investigations carried out over a period of about nineteen years by the civilian prosecutors’ offices and, subsequently, by the military prosecuting authorities, the findings of which are contained in case file ... have not made it possible to establish the identity of the miners who committed the attack, the degree of involvement in their actions by the security forces and members and sympathisers of the FSN and their role and degree of involvement in the acts of violence carried out against the residents of the capital on 14 and 15 June 1990.” 156. This decision ordered that proceedings be discontinued against one of the defendants, who had died in the meantime, and that no prosecution would be brought (scoatere de sub urmărire penală) in respect of the eight remaining defendants for those offences which had become statute-barred, in particular harbouring a criminal. 157. With regard to the offences which had not become time-barred, especially those of inhuman treatment, the decision stated that there was no case to answer, since the constituent elements of the offences had not been made out or because the reality of the events complained of had not been proven. 158. In this connection, it was indicated that the then Head of State could not be criticised for any form of participation in the joint actions by the miners and the armed forces, as he had merely approved the actions which occurred on the morning of 13 June 1990 and the army’s intervention on the afternoon of the same date, for the stated purpose of restoring order. It was also mentioned that there was no information (date certe) to substantiate accusations against him with regard to the preparations for the miners’ arrival in Bucharest and the instructions they had been given. It was noted that his request to the miners to protect the State institutions and to restore order – following which 1,021 persons had been deprived of their liberty and subjected to physical assault – could only be classified as incitement to commit assault and that criminal liability in that respect was time-barred. 159. The prosecutor’s office considered that the demonstrators and other persons targeted by the miners belonged to various ethnic groups (Romanians, Roma, Hungarians) and social categories (intellectuals, students, school pupils, but also workers), and that they could not therefore be regarded as a single group or an identifiable community on objective geographical, historical, social or other grounds, and for that reason the events complained of could not be classified as genocide. Relying on the case-law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the prosecutor’s office also considered that the persons deprived of liberty had not been systematically subjected to ill-treatment. 160. The decision further indicated that the speech by which the Head of State had encouraged the miners to occupy and defend University Square against the demonstrators camping out there could not be interpreted as propaganda in favour of war, as the accused had not sought to instigate a conflict of any kind, but had, on the contrary, asked the miners “to put an end to excess and acts of bloodshed”. 161. It was also indicated that the miners had been motivated by simplistic personal convictions, developed on the basis of collective hysteria, which had led them to act as arbitrators of the political situation and zealous guardians of the political regime – the leaders of which had recognised them as such –, authorised to “correct” those who opposed its legitimacy. The prosecutor further noted the legal requirement that, to be punishable, the inhuman treatment had to target “individuals who [had] fallen into enemy hands” and considered that this criterion had not been met here, since the miners no longer had any enemy against whom to fight on 14 June 1990. 162. With regard to the accusations of torture, the prosecutor considered that Romanian law contained no provisions against torture at the material time. 163. The decision of 17 June 2009 analyses each of the charges in respect of each defendant, but refers to none of the victims by name and does not mention the individual acts of violence complained of by each of them, referring to an appendix which has not been submitted to the Court. It mentions the number of victims and their membership of such or such a category, noting, for example, the 425 persons who were arrested and held on the premises of the Băneasa Officers’ School or the 574 demonstrators who were arrested and imprisoned on the premises of the Măgurele military base. 164. The applicant association, other legal entities and individuals lodged an appeal against the decision of 17 June 2009 not to bring a prosecution, which was dismissed on 3 September 2009 by the head prosecutor of the relevant section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. In so ruling, the prosecutor’s office considered that no actions which could be classified as a crime against humanity, such as inhuman treatment or genocide, had been committed. 165. Mr Stoica and four other injured parties also lodged an appeal against the same decision. It was dismissed on 6 November 2009. Mr Stoica lodged on appeal on points of law before the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 166. On 9 March 2011, having dismissed the plea of res judicata raised by the former Head of State, the High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled on the merits of the decision not to bring a prosecution, and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 167. In its judgment, it classified the assault against the applicant as grievous bodily harm (Article 182 of the Criminal Code), unlawful arrest, ill-treatment (Article 267), torture, unjust repression and blackmail. It considered that the decision of 17 June 2009 had been correct in ruling that no prosecution was to be brought, on the ground that the offences in question had become time-barred and that torture had not been a criminal offence at the material time. 168. In contrast, it did not rule on the criminalisation of inhuman treatment (Article 358 of the Criminal Code), which had been the subject of the decision of 29 April 2008, in which the applicant was named as a victim of the inhuman treatment imputed to five generals. 169. According to the Government, the main investigative measures carried out in the period between 1990 and 2009 were as follows: more than 840 interviews with injured parties; hearing of witnesses on more than 5,724 occasions; and more than 100 forensic medical reports. The results of those measures were set out in several thousand pages of documents. (a) Investigative measures concerning Mr Stoica in particular 170. On 18 June 2001, when he was received by a prosecutor at the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice, Mr Stoica lodged an official complaint concerning the violence of which he claimed to have been victim on the night of 13 to 14 June 1990. 171. His complaint was joined to the investigation file already opened in respect of other charges, especially inhuman treatment (case file no. 75/P/1998). 172. On 18 October 2002, for the purposes of the investigation into the alleged assault against him, the applicant underwent an examination at the State Institute of Forensic Medicine, which produced a forensic medical report. That report indicated that the injuries described in the medical file opened by the emergency unit on 14 June 1990 had required three to five days of medical treatment and had not been such as to endanger the applicant’s life. 173. It was also indicated that the applicant had been hospitalised for major epileptic fits from 31 October to 28 November 1990, in February 1997, March 2002 and August 2002, and that he had been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic secondary epilepsy and other cerebral and vascular disorders (transient ischemic attacks – TIAs). The expert report noted that the post-traumatic epilepsy had appeared following an injury sustained in 1966. 174. On 9 and 17 May 2005 the applicant was questioned and was able to give his point of view on the events complained of and submit his claims for compensation in respect of the alleged pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 175. By a letter of 23 May 2005, he was informed by the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice that his complaint concerning the injuries inflicted on 13 June 1990 by unidentified servicemen, which had resulted in his hospitalisation “in a coma”, was being investigated in the context of case no. 75/P/1998. 176. A certificate issued on 26 April 2006 indicates that, according to the entries in the register held by the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Justice and Cassation, the applicant had been received by a prosecutor in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, mainly for the purposes of the investigation or to enquire about progress in the investigation. The applicant lodged two additional complaints, on 12 September and 4 October 2006 respectively. 177. On 23 April 2007 the prosecutor questioned two witnesses indicated by the applicant. 178. When questioned on 9 May 2007 as an injured party, the applicant asked the military prosecutor to order a second forensic medical report, since he considered that the 2002 report had entirely failed to emphasise the seriousness of the injuries sustained in 1990 and the continuing after-effects of those injuries. 179. The prosecutor ordered a new report. Among other things, he asked the forensic specialists to examine whether a causal link existed between the injury sustained by the applicant in June 1990 and the medical conditions from which he was suffering on the date on which the report was ordered. 180. During his questioning, the applicant was invited to watch a video recording of the events of 13 June 1990, including those at the headquarters of the State television station. He recognised himself, and asked that the video recording be added to the investigation file. 181. On 25 June 2007 the new medical report was added to the case file. It specified, again on the basis of the medical records drawn up on 14 June 1990, that the applicant’s injuries had required three to five days of medical treatment and that they had not been life-threatening. It specified that there was no causal link between the injuries sustained on the night of 13 to 14 June 1990 and the applicant’s medical problems, which had subsequently required numerous periods of hospitalisation. 182. On 30 October 2007, at the applicant’s request, the medical observation files on his condition prepared by the emergency unit of Bucharest Hospital in 1992 were added to the file. 183. The medical board at the National Social Security Fund had previously issued the applicant with a certificate, dated 24 May 2007, indicating that he was suffering from “overall accentuated impairment” resulting in total inability to work. The relevant passages of this certificate read as follows: “In view of the medical records in the patient’s file, the documents which have been added recently ... and the clinical psychiatric examination conducted on 24 May 2007, the specialist committee and the higher committee reach the following clinical diagnosis: mixed personality disorders, aggravated by organic causes. Acute traumatic brain injury 1990 (assault). Epilepsy with partial generalised secondary crises, confirmed clinically and by EEG, currently rare...., supraventricular incidents in his medical history (irregular heart rhythm (flutter) and atrioventricular block ..., with a return to sinus rhythm ... after cardioversion). Functional diagnosis: overall accentuated impairment. Fitness for work: totally lost, 2nd level invalidity. Adaptive incapacity: 72%” 184. In the meantime, on 10 May 2004 the prosecutor’s office at the Bucharest County Court had issued a decision not to bring a prosecution in another case, following a complaint of attempted murder lodged by the applicant on the basis of the same facts. (b) Clarifications regarding the examination of the criminal complaint, with a request to join the proceedings as a civil party, lodged by the applicant association 185. On 9 July 1990 Bucharest military unit no. 02515 sent the applicant association a letter informing it that “an inventory of the items found on 14 June 1990 [at the association’s headquarters] [had] been drawn up by the representatives of the Procurator General’s Office (Procuratura Generală) and placed, with an official report, at the headquarters of the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office (Procuratura Municipiului Bucureşti)”. 186. On 22 July 1990 two police officers went to the applicant association’s headquarters. They noted that the windows had been broken and the locks destroyed, and that the items in the headquarters had “all been ransacked”. They drew up a report in the presence of the association’s leaders and a witness. 187. On 26 July 1990 the applicant association lodged a criminal complaint with the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office, complaining about the ransacking of its headquarters and the attacks sustained by some of its members on 14 June 1990, and demanded the restitution of all the materials and documents which had been confiscated. It requested leave to join the criminal proceedings as a civil party. 188. On 22 October 1997 the General Inspectorate of Police sent the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice twenty-one case files, opened following criminal complaints by several individuals and legal entities with regard to the events of 13 and 14 June 1990. Those files included case file no. 1476/P/1990, which concerned the applicant association’s complaint regarding the ill-treatment inflicted on several of its members. The General Inspectorate of Police invited the prosecutor’s office to inform it of the steps to be taken with a view to conducting interviews for the purpose of the investigation. 189. The applicant association contacted the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice, subsequently the High Court of Cassation and Justice, on a regular basis for information concerning progress in the investigation or to request additional investigative measures, until the investigation was closed by the decision of 17 June 2009 not to bring a prosecution.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicants are Russian nationals who live in various districts of the Chechen Republic. They are the close relatives of people who disappeared after allegedly being arrested at their homes by servicemen. In each of the applications, the events took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The alleged abductions were primarily carried out during curfew hours, at night or early in the morning. In some of the cases, the applicants submitted that, at the material time, a special operation was being conducted by military servicemen or law-enforcement agencies in the area, which was subsequently confirmed by the investigation (see, for example, Vezirov and Others (no. 44284/11), Nuraliyevy (no. 48134/11) and Sangariyevy (no. 52182/11)). 6. The applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. 7. From the documents submitted, it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions. 8. In their observations, the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged abductions. 9. Below are summaries of the facts relevant to each individual complaint. Each account of events is based on statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and to the domestic investigative authorities. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in Appendix I. 10. The applicant, Ms Petimat Ismailova (in the documents submitted also referred to as Baskhanova), was born in 1980, and lives in Katyr‑Yurt in the Achkhoy-Martan district, the Chechen Republic. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. 11. The applicant is the wife of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov, who was born in 1980. 12. At the material time, the applicant and her husband Mr Ruslan Baskhanov lived in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. Their house was situated in proximity to the Achkhoy-Martan district military commander’s office. 13. At about 3 a.m. on 6 January 2004 a group of about fifteen masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house in two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and took Mr Ruslan Baskhanov away. 14. There has been no news of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov since that day. 15. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 16. On 9 January 2004 the applicant reported the abduction, and on 15 January 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 38002. 17. On 15 January 2004 investigators examined the crime scene and collected three bullet cartridges. The expert examination they carried out subsequently concluded that they had been fired from various types of firearms. 18. On 26 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 replied to the investigators, denying that military servicemen had been involved in the abduction. 19. On 15 May 2004 the investigation was suspended. 20. From the documents submitted, it appears that on an unspecified date in July 2007 the investigation was resumed, several witnesses were questioned (see paragraph 29 below) and the proceedings were then suspended. 21. On 11 June 2008 the investigation was again resumed, and on 16 July 2008 it was again suspended. The applicant was not informed thereof. 22. On 24 March 2009 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed as the investigators had failed to take a number of basic steps, such as establishing the owners of the APCs used by the abductors and granting the applicant victim status in the criminal case. On the same date the orders were given, the applicant was granted victim status and the proceedings were resumed. 23. On 28 March 2009 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof. 24. On 21 April 2012 the investigation was resumed again. It is still pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 25. On 9 January 2004 the investigators questioned five of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, all of whom stated that they had learnt of the circumstances of the abduction from the applicant. 26. On an unspecified date in January 2004 the investigators questioned the applicant, whose statement concerning the events was similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, she told the investigators that the perpetrators of her husband’s abduction had been federal servicemen. 27. On 22 January 2004 the applicant’s relative and the aunt of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov, Ms A.M., wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, stating that on an unspecified date between 6 and 21 January 2004 she had been invited by the head of the Achkhoy-Martan District Department of the Interior (ROVD) to a meeting with law-enforcement and military officers at the police station. During the meeting, she had pointed out to those present that the military commander had acknowledged that Mr Ruslan Baskhanov had been detained on 6 January 2004 by a law-enforcement agency. From the documents submitted, it transpires that no steps were taken by the investigators to verify this information. 28. Between February 2004 and May 2005 the investigators questioned about thirty of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, all of whom provided statements similar to the account furnished by the applicant to the Court. 29. On 18 July 2007 the investigators questioned another four of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, whose statements did not yield any new information. 30. On various dates between 1 and 10 July 2008 the investigators questioned several more of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, whose statements did not yield any new information either. 31. On 24 March 2009 the applicant was questioned again. She reiterated her previous statements. (c) The applicant’s contact with the authorities 32. On 3 June 2004 the investigators replied to a request by the applicant for information, stating that they had taken a number of steps to establish the whereabouts of her abducted husband and that even though on 15 May 2004 the proceedings had been suspended, the measures to identify the perpetrators and establish her husband’s whereabouts were still in progress. 33. On 26 November 2008 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr Ruslan Baskhanov missing. 34. On 24 February 2009 in reply to a request by the applicant of 27 January 2009, the investigators informed her that she had the right to review only certain documents from the investigation file, but not its entire contents. 35. On 11 October 2010 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court partially allowed a complaint by the applicant against the decision to suspend the investigation of 28 March 2009 and ordered the investigators to take all necessary steps. 36. The applicants are: (1) Ms Khava Idigova, born in 1961, (2) Mr Ibragim Khamzatov, born in 1999, and (3) Ms Marem Khamzatova, born in 2000. 37. The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 38. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Magomed Khamzatov, who was born in 1959. The first applicant is his wife, and the second and third applicants are his children. 39. At the material time, the applicants and Mr Magomed Khamzatov lived at 93 Saltykova‑Szhedrina Street in the Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny. 40. At about 5 a.m. on 5 December 2004 the first applicant saw from her window a group of about ten to twelve armed servicemen in military uniforms, masks, bulletproof vests and helmets running down the street and breaking into a nearby house, which belonged to the applicants’ relatives. 41. Shortly afterwards, the armed men went to the applicants’ house and demanded that the first applicant open the door. They said that they were the police and were conducting identity checks. The intruders, who spoke unaccented Russian, took Mr Magomed Khamzatov outside, along with his passport and some clothing. The first applicant followed the abductors and saw that they had arrived in the neighbourhood in a UAZ minivan parked on a neighbouring street. A number of the applicants’ neighbours saw the servicemen forcing Mr Magomed Khamzatov into the vehicle and driving off. 42. On the same night the same group of servicemen broke into a neighbouring house occupied by Ms A.T. and her family. The men quickly checked the family’s identity documents and searched the premises. 43. The applicants have not seen Mr Magomed Khamzatov since his abduction on 5 December 2004. 44. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 45. On 6 December 2004 (in the documents submitted also referred to as 5 December 2004) investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 46. On 15 December 2004 (in the documents submitted also referred to as 7 December 2004) the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 33090. On 18 December 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status. 47. On 15 February 2005 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 48. On 20 May and then on 24 June 2005 an operational search officer reported to the investigators that Mr Magomed Khamzatov had been an active member of illegal armed groups, which could have been the reason for his detention by law-enforcement agencies. 49. On 26 May 2005 the investigation was resumed. 50. On 26 June 2006 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 51. On 25 December 2007 the supervising prosecutor criticised the way the investigation was being conducted and ordered that it be resumed. 52. On 2 February 2008 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 2 March 2008. The applicants were informed thereof. 53. On 24 March 2008, again upon criticism and orders from the supervising prosecutor, the investigation was resumed. 54. On 25 April, 8 August and 3 October 2008 the investigation was suspended again, and was resumed on 7 July, 3 September and 24 November 2008 respectively upon orders from the supervising prosecutor. The applicants were informed of the last suspension. 55. On 28 January 2009 the investigation was again resumed and then suspended on 27 February 2009. 56. On 23 April 2012 the investigation was again resumed. It is still pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 57. On 5 December 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant and eight of her relatives and neighbours. The witnesses’ descriptions of the abduction were similar to the account furnished by the applicants to the Court. 58. On 18 December 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who reiterated her previous statement. 59. Between 25 December 2004 and 20 January 2005 the investigators questioned eight of the applicants’ relatives and neighbours, whose statements did not yield any new information. 60. On 26 March 2008 the investigators questioned six of the applicants’ neighbours, who did not provide any new information about the circumstances of the abduction. (c) The applicants’ contact with the authorities 61. On 24 February 2005 the father of Mr Magomed Khamzatov, Mr Kh., wrote to the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences, asking them to confirm whether his son was being detained on the premises of the main Russian military base in Khankala, Chechnya. No reply was given to this request. 62. On 1 April 2005, in reply to a request by the first applicant of 25 March 2005 concerning the progress of the proceedings, the investigators informed her that they were ongoing. 63. On 12 July 2005 the first applicant requested that the investigators take steps to establish her husband’s whereabouts and resume the proceedings if they had been suspended. 64. On an unspecified date in October or November 2008 the applicants’ relative and the mother of Mr Magomed Khamzatov, Ms Kh. Kh., complained to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny that the investigators had failed to take a number of basic steps to solve her son’s abduction and requested that the proceedings be resumed. On 28 November 2008 the District Court rejected the complaint, stating that the investigation had already been resumed that day. 65. On 25 May 2010, upon a request by the first applicant, the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny declared Mr Magomed Khamzatov dead. 66. The applicants are: (1) Mr Zaurbek Vezirov, born in 1954, (2) Ms Aminat Vezirova, born in 1957, (3) Ms Raisa Bibulatova, born in 1979, (4) Ms Eliza Vezirova, born in 1990, (5) Ms Elina Vezirova, born in 1990, (6) Ms Rukiyat Vezirova, born in 1986 and (7) Ms Zhansari Vezirova, born in 1980. 67. The first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants live in the settlement of Ilyinovskoye (also spelt Ilyinovka) in the Naurskiy district, the Chechen Republic. The sixth applicant lives in the Rostov region and the seventh applicant lives in Grozny. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 68. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Kharun Vezirov, who was born in 1977, and Mr Askhab Vezirov, who was born in 1979. The first and second applicants are their parents, and the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are their sisters. The third applicant is the wife of Mr Askhab Vezirov. 69. At the material time the applicants, along with Mr Kharun Vezirov and Mr Askhab Vezirov and other relatives, lived at 4 Nagornaya Street in Ilyinovskoye. 70. At about 4 a.m. on 7 July 2003 a group of about ten servicemen arrived at their house in several UAZ vehicles and a GAZEL minivan. The servicemen, who were armed and in camouflage uniforms and masks, checked the identity documents of the family members and then dragged Mr Kharun Vezirov to the backyard, where they subjected him to beatings, demanding in unaccented Russian that he show them the firearms he had allegedly hidden in the house. Having searched the house, the servicemen forced Mr Kharun Vezirov and Mr Askhab Vezirov into the minivan and drove off in the direction of Argun, a nearby town. 71. The applicants have not seen the two brothers since that date. 72. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 73. On 27 February 2004 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 34025. 74. On various dates in March and April 2004 the investigators requested that the Grozny ROVD assist them in the search for the Vezirov brothers stating, amongst other things: “[...] on 7 July 2003 in Ilyinovskoye, a special operation involving a large number of military servicemen and policemen was carried out...” 75. On 9 March 2004 the third applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case, and on 25 May 2004 the first applicant was also granted that status. 76. On 27 May and 29 July 2004 the investigation was suspended and then on 22 June and 17 August 2004 respectively it was resumed upon orders from the supervising prosecutor. 77. On 12 March 2007 and 14 April 2011 the applicants were informed that the investigation had been suspended on 19 September 2004 for failure to identify the perpetrators. 78. From the documents submitted, it appears that the investigation was resumed on or around 29 May 2012 and is still pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 79. On 25 February 2004 the investigators questioned the first, second and third applicants, whose statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, the second applicant provided the investigators with a detailed description of the appearances and uniforms of two of the abductors. 80. On March 2004 the investigators questioned the first and third applicants and one of the applicants’ neighbours, Mr Kh.-A.A. again, whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. 81. On 2 September 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who stated that he suspected that the abduction of his sons had been perpetrated by State agents because of his family’s kinship with a certain Mr Abubakar, who had been an active member of illegal armed groups. He also stated that his son Mr Kharun Vezirov had fought against the federal forces during the first military campaign in Chechnya in 1996. 82. On 6 September 2004 the investigators questioned the third applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements. 83. On 9 September 2004 the investigators questioned the head of a local state enterprise, Mr A.A., who stated that there were no detention facilities on their premises. (c) The applicants’ contact with the authorities 84. On 9 June 2004 the third applicant wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, asking for assistance in the search for her abducted relatives. 85. On an unspecified date between January and March 2007 the applicants requested information on the progress of the investigation. They were informed in reply on 12 March 2007 that the proceedings had been suspended on 19 September 2004 (see paragraph 77 above). 86. Between 24 and 27 July 2009 the applicants requested their representatives to assist them in dealing with the investigative authorities and establishing the circumstances of the abduction. 87. On an unspecified date between January and March 2011 the applicants again requested information on the progress of the investigation. They were informed in reply on 14 April 2011 that the proceedings had been suspended since 19 September 2004 (see paragraph 77 above). 88. The applicants are: (1) Ms Khazan (also spelt as Khaza) Ismailova, born in 1957, (2) Ms Medni Isayeva, born in 2003, and (3) Ms Zina Ismailova, born in 1939. The first and second applicants live in Goyty, and the third applicant lives in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 89. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Aslambek Isayev, who was born in 1981. The first applicant is his aunt, the second applicant is his daughter, and the third applicant is his grandmother. 90. At the material time, the applicants and Mr Aslambek Isayev lived together in flat no. 8 (in the documents submitted also referred to as no. 11) in a block of flats at 54 Tobolskaya Street in Grozny. The applicants’ neighbourhood was surrounded by military checkpoints and the area was under curfew. 91. At about 3 a.m. on 16 April 2003 a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the block of flats in two UAZ vehicles. They broke into the applicants’ flat, asked the applicants in unaccented Russian whether any firearms were hidden on the premises and quickly searched it. Afterwards, they told the applicants that identity checks had been conducted in the area and that more than fifty people had already been arrested as a result. They then said that they would check Mr Aslambek Isayev’s identity, put him in one of the UAZ cars and drove off. 92. The applicants have not seen Mr Aslambek Isayev since 16 April 2003. 93. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 94. On 1 May 2003 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 40070. 95. On 19 May 2003 the wife of Mr Aslambek Isayev, Ms M.M., was granted victim status in the criminal case. 96. On 22 May 2003 the crime scene was examined. No evidence was collected. 97. On 1 August 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof. 98. On 12 May 2005 the decision to suspend the proceedings was overruled for failure on the part of the investigators to take basic steps and the proceedings were resumed. On 15 June 2005 they were again suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 99. From the documents submitted, it appears that on an unspecified date in 2012 the investigation was resumed and that it is still pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 100. On 15 May 2003 the investigators questioned the third applicant, whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, she told the investigators that Mr Aslambek Isayev’s abductors had informed her of the identity checks in the area resulting in the arrest of about fifty local residents. 101. On the same date, 15 May 2003, the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative and Mr Aslambek Isayev’s wife, Ms M.M., who stated that on the morning of 16 April 2003 Mr Aslambek Isayev had been arrested by military servicemen who had arrived in two UAZ vehicles. 102. On 19 May 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement about the events was similar to the one given by Ms M.M. on 15 May 2003. 103. On 8 June 2005 the investigators questioned Ms M.M. again, who reiterated her previous statement. (c) The applicants’ contact with the authorities 104. On 12 May 2003 Ms M.M. requested that the Chechnya prosecutor’s office assist her in the search for her husband. 105. On 7 June and 21 December 2005 and then in March 2006 the first applicant complained to a number of law-enforcement authorities, including the Chechnya military prosecutor’s office and the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, that Mr Aslambek Isayev had been abducted by “representatives of power structures” and that the investigation into the matter had been ineffective. 106. On 20 January 2008 Ms M.M. complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Grozny that the investigation had been ineffective. The complaint was left without examination. 107. On 15 April 2009 the first applicant requested that the investigators allow her to access the investigation file. On 16 April 2009 the investigators replied that she was allowed to make copies of only certain documents from the file. 108. On 26 January 2011 the applicants complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court, stating that the investigation into the abduction had been ineffective. The outcome of this complaint is unknown. 109. The applicants are Ms Maret Nuraliyeva, who was born in 1970 and lives in Grozny, and Ms Aset Nuraliyeva, who was born in 1972 and lives in Dyshne‑Vedeno, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. 110. The applicants are sisters of Mr Daud Nuraliyev, who was born in 1979, and Mr Khalid Nuraliyev, who was born in 1974. 111. At the material time, the applicants, their two sisters and four brothers, including Mr Daud Nuraliyev and Mr Khalid Nuraliyev, lived together in Chechen-Aul in the Grozny district. 112. Between 10 and 24 June 2002 the federal military forces conducted a ‘sweeping-up’ operation in Chechen-Aul. The temporary headquarters of the operation were stationed on the outskirts of the village. 113. On 16 June 2002 a group of about ten armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in two APCs. The servicemen, some of whom were masked, searched the house and demanded Mr Daud Nuraliyev in unaccented Russian to proceed with them for an identity check; Mr Daud Nuraliyev was put into one of the APCs, which drove off towards the temporary military headquarters. 114. On 23 June 2002 by the corner of Sadovaya Street and Sovkhoznaya Street the same group of military servicemen in APCs detained Mr Khalid Nuraliyev and took him to the temporary headquarters. 115. The applicants have not seen their brothers since their abduction. 116. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 117. On 28 June 2002 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 56099. The document stated that Mr Khalid Nuraliyev had been abducted “by unidentified persons during [a] special operation”. 118. On 6 January 2003 the applicants were informed that the investigation of the abduction had been suspended, but that operational‑search measures were being taken to establish the whereabouts of the abducted men and identify the culprits. 119. On 30 November 2006 the investigation was resumed. 120. On 19 December 2006 the applicants’ sister, Ms Ya.N., was granted victim status in the criminal case. 121. On 30 December 2006 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 122. On 17 September 2010 the investigation was resumed and on 21 September 2010 the crime scene was examined. No evidence was collected. 123. On 11 November 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 124. On 18 October 2010 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 125. On 11 November 2010 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation and ordered its resumption. On the same date the first applicant was again granted victim status and questioned. 126. On 14 November 2010 the investigation was again suspended. It appears, however, that the investigation has been resumed and that the proceedings are still pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 127. On 29 June 2002 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement about the circumstances of her brothers’ abduction was similar to the account furnished to the Court. She stressed to the investigators that, in her opinion, the abductors had been federal servicemen. 128. On the same date, 29 June 2002, the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Ms R.T., whose statement was similar to the one given by the first applicant. 129. On 19 December 2002 and then on 20 January 2003 the investigators questioned the second applicant, whose statement concerning the circumstances the abduction was similar to the one given by the first applicant. She also stressed that the abductors had been in the federal forces. 130. On 19 December 2006 the investigators questioned the applicants’ sisters Ms Ya.N. and Ms Ma.N. and their relative Ms P.N., whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the ones given by the applicants. 131. On 28 December 2006 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements and added that the district police officer had admitted participating in her brothers’ arrest. 132. On 29 December 2009 the investigators questioned a local police officer, Mr A.I., who confirmed the conduct of the ten-day special operation in June 2002 in Chechen-Aul. 133. On various dates in September and October 2010 the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ fellow villagers, whose statements did not provide any relevant information. 134. On 7 October 2010 the investigators questioned the applicants’ sisters again, who reiterated their previous statements. 135. On 11 November 2010 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements. (c) The applicants’ contact with the authorities 136. According to the applicants, at some point in 2005 they heard a rumour that Mr Khalid Nuraliyev was allegedly being detained in a prison in the Rostov region. In the same year they forwarded a number of requests to various authorities asking them to verify this information. The replies given were in the negative. 137. On 26 May 2010 the first applicant complained to the Grozny district prosecutor that the investigation of her brothers’ abduction by servicemen during the special operation had been ineffective, and requested to be informed of its progress. 138. On 3 June 2010 the investigators replied to the applicant, stating that they were taking all possible measures to have the crime solved. 139. On 24 February 2011 the first applicant complained to the Grozny District Court that the investigation of criminal case no. 56099 had been ineffective and requested the court to order the authorities to resume the proceedings and conduct an effective investigation into the abduction. 140. On 14 March 2011 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint, stating that the investigation had already been resumed. On 13 April 2011 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Chechnya Supreme Court. 141. The applicant, Ms Arbiyat Khamstkhanova, was born in 1960 and lives in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny. 142. The applicant is the wife of Mr Iles Khamstkhanov, who was born in 1960 (in the documents submitted the date is also stated as 1955). 143. At about 11 p.m. on 12 January 2006 a group of ten armed servicemen in bulletproof vests and special helmets (the uniform usually worn by special forces) arrived at the applicant’s house in Grozny in three UAZ vehicles. One of the vehicles was armoured, while the others were equipped with mobile radio stations. 144. The servicemen smashed windows and broke their way inside. They grabbed Mr Iles Khamstkhanov and dragged him outside; two of the intruders held the applicant’s son Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov at gunpoint and ordered him not to move. The servicemen put Mr Iles Khamstkhanov in one of the vehicles and drove off in the direction of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in Grozny. Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov went to the ROVD with his relatives immediately; they were told at the police station that Mr Iles Khamstkhanov had been arrested by mistake and that he would be released soon. 145. The applicant has not seen Mr Iles Khamstkhanov since 12 January 2006. 146. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 147. On 12 January 2006 the applicant and her relatives reported the abduction in writing to the ROVD. 148. On 13 January 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 149. On 30 January 2006 the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 52007. On 31 January 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 150. On 20 May 2006 the applicant was informed that the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 151. On 25 June 2007 the investigation was resumed and then suspended the next day. 152. On 16 June 2008 the investigation was resumed and then suspended the next day. 153. On 20 October 2008 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 21 November 2008. 154. On 26 April 2011 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 6 May 2011. 155. On 23 April 2012 the investigation was resumed. The proceedings are still pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 156. On 13 and 14 January 2006 investigators questioned the applicant, her young daughter and her son Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov. Their statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, the applicant told the investigators that one of the abductors had told her that they had been from the Federal Security Service. 157. On 31 January 2006 the investigators questioned the applicant and her son Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov and their neighbour Ms P.U. again; their statements contained the same information concerning the abduction as the account submitted to the Court. 158. On 28 April 2006 the investigators questioned the applicant’s daughter Ms P.Kh., Mr Iles Khamstkhanov’s brother, Mr Kh.Kh., and Mr Iles Khamstkhanov’s cousin, Mr A. Kh. Their statements concerning the incident were similar to the ones given by the applicant. (c) The applicant’s contact with the authorities 159. On various dates between 1 January and March 2006 the applicant wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office asking for assistance in the search for her husband. 160. On 25 February 2011 the applicant complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Grozny that the investigation of her husband’s abduction by representatives of power structures had been ineffective and requested that it be resumed and carried out effectively. On 27 April 2011 the court rejected her complaint, stating that the investigation had been resumed on 26 April 2011. 161. The applicants are: (1) Ms Khedi Aguyeva, born in 1960, (2) Mr Inderpash Ismailov, born in 1956, (3) Ms Marusa Aguyeva, born in 1921, (4) Ms Luiza Makhmadova (also spelt Makhamdova and Makhamadova), born in 1985, and (5) Mr Atama Ismailov, born in 2003. The first and third applicants live in Malorechnaya in the Kurchaloy district, the second applicant lives in Tsotsi-Yurt (also spelt Tsotsen-Yurt) in the Kurchaloy district, and the fourth and fifth applicants live in Gudermes, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 162. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Dzhandar (also spelt Zhandar) Ismailov, who was born in 1979, and Mr Dzhalil (also spelt Zhalil) Ismailov, who was born in 1982. The first and second applicants are their parents, the third applicant is their grandmother. The fourth applicant is the wife of Mr Dzhandar Ismailov and the fifth applicant is his daughter. 163. At the material time, the town of Gudermes was under curfew; it was surrounded by military checkpoints. A special military unit, no. 291 of the 42nd regiment of the Motorised Infantry Division of the Russian Ministry of Defence, known as ‘Battalion Vostok’ (батальон 291-го мотострелкового полка 42-ой гвардейской мотострелковой дивизии Министерства Обороны РФ) was stationed in the settlement. According to the applicants, the battalion was involved in special operations of the Russian federal forces. Mr Dzhandar Ismailov and Mr Dzhalil Ismailov lived with their families, including the applicants, on the second floor of a block of flats at 52 Kavkazskaya Street in Gudermes. 164. In the early hours of 21 January 2003 (in the documents submitted also referred to as 17 January 2003) a group of about ten to fifteen servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the applicants’ address in a grey UAZ vehicle with a smeared registration plate. The only serviceman without a mask had dark hair and a clearly visible scar on his left cheek. The intruders, who spoke Chechen, were armed with machine guns and dispersed themselves throughout each floor of the building. They then broke into the applicants’ flat and quickly searched it. They were in a rush and gave no explanation for their actions. After the search they took Mr Dzhandar Ismailov and Mr Dzhalil Ismailov outside, without allowing them to put on any warm clothing. They forced the brothers into the UAZ vehicle and drove off in the direction of Grozny. 165. About two or three months after the abduction, the second applicant was informed by Mr A.Kh., an officer from Battalion Vostok, that his sons had been detained upon orders from the battalion’s commander Mr Dzhabrail Yamadayev. 166. The applicants have not seen their relatives since that date. 167. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 168. On 21 January 2003 the applicants reported the abduction of their relatives by federal servicemen to the local law-enforcement authorities. On 23 January 2003 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 32005. 169. On 24 January 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 170. On 23 April 2003 the investigation was suspended. On 2 December 2004 the applicants were informed thereof. 171. On 8 May 2009, upon complaints by the applicant of a lack of information about the proceedings, the investigators informed them that the investigation had established that representatives of the law-enforcement agencies had possibly been involved in the abduction. 172. On 11 June 2009 the investigation was resumed. 173. On 26 November 2011 the investigation was suspended again. The proceedings were subsequently resumed and are apparently still pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 174. On 23 January 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant’s neighbour, Ms M.S., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the account provided by the applicants to the Court. 175. Between 23 and 25 January 2003 the investigators questioned the second, third and fourth applicants, whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. 176. On 11 February 2003 the investigators questioned the second applicant again. He reiterated his previous statement and added that Ms Zukhra S. had contacted him to say that his abducted sons had been detained in Khankala (where the main military base of the federal forces was stationed at the time) and that they would be released in exchange for 10,000 American dollars (USD). 177. On 21 February 2003 the investigators questioned Ms S. Zukhra, who stated that she had servicemen contacts and had tried to use them to expedite the release of abductees. 178. On 24 April 2009 the investigators examined the crime scene. 179. On various dates in 2009 the investigators questioned a number of witnesses concerning the activities of Ms S. Zukhra, who had used several other identities. All of the witnesses confirmed that she had had servicemen contacts and assisted in organising the release of detainees in exchange for money. In August or September 2009 Ms S. Zukhra absconded from the authorities. (c) The applicants’ contact with the authorities 180. Between January and February 2003 the applicants and their relatives requested assistance in the search for their relatives from various authorities. 181. From the documents submitted, it appears that between December 2004 and August 2008 the applicants did not contact the authorities. 182. On 11 September 2008 the first applicant complained to the Gudermes inter-district investigations department of the prosecutor’s office of a lack of information on the progress of the investigation and requested permission to review the case file. On 11 October 2008 the investigators replied that the proceedings had been suspended on 23 April 2003 and that she could review the file at their office. 183. On 23 March 2009 the investigators informed the first applicant that she could not review the case file as she did not have victim status in the criminal case. 184. On 5 April 2009 the first applicant again complained to the investigators of a lack of information and requested to be allowed to review the case file. On 21 April 2009 she was granted victim status in the criminal case. 185. On 1 June 2009 the first applicant’s lawyer requested that the investigators grant him access to the case file. No reply was given to this request. 186. On 14 February 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators provide her with an update on the progress of the proceedings. No reply was given to this request. 187. The applicants are: (1) Ms Zulay Sangariyeva, born in 1957, (2) Ms Zulikhan Sangariyeva, born in 1986, (3) Ms Aminat Sangariyeva, born in 1983, (4) Mr Islam Sangariyev, born in 1981, (5) Ms Raisa Sangariyeva, born in 1950, and (6) Mr Said-Magomed Sangariyev, born in 1950. The applicants are two related families. All of them live in Stariye Atagi in the Grozny district, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 188. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Said-Ibragim Sangariyev, who was born in 1978, and the second, third and fourth applicants are his siblings. The fifth and sixth applicants are the parents of Mr Idris Sangariyev, who was born in 1977. 189. On the night of 11 February 2001 two cousins, Mr Said-Ibragim (also referred to as Ibragim) Sangariyev and Mr Idris Sangariyev, were staying at their uncle Mr Said‑Khussein Sangariyev’s house in Stariye Atagi. 190. At 6 a.m. a group of about forty to fifty military servicemen arrived at the house in three APCs. Other military vehicles and URAL lorries cordoned off the neighbourhood, and the servicemen ordered the neighbours to stay inside. 191. The servicemen climbed over the fence and broke into the house. Threatening to blow up the dwelling, they took Mr Said-Khussein Sangariyev outside and made him kneel against the wall, demanding that he tell them where his nephews Mr Said-Ibragim Sangariyev and Mr Idris Sangariyev were. The servicemen then searched the house looking for the two cousins; about an hour later they found them and dragged them outside. The servicemen then reported the arrest to their superiors via portable radios using the code numbers ‘22-23-43’. Afterwards, they took Mr Said-Ibragim Sangariyev’s car, a VAZ-2107 with registration number C96 AP 20RUS, put both cousins inside and drove them off in the direction of Grozny. According to the documents submitted, the applicants’ relatives were taken to Khankala, the headquarters of the Russian federal forces in Chechnya. 192. Less than a month after the abduction, the fourth applicant saw that Mr Said-Ibragim Sangariyev’s car was being driven around by a group of military servicemen of Slavic appearance, whose uniform had small stars on the shoulder straps. 193. The applicants have not seen their relatives since 12 February 2001. 194. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 195. On 14, 19, 22 and 28 March 2001 the applicants reported their relatives’ abduction by military servicemen to a number of law-enforcement agencies. 196. On 9 April 2001 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 19045 (in the documents submitted also referred to as no. 42229). From the documents submitted, it appears that criminal case no. 19045 was opened in connection with not only the abduction of the applicants’ relatives, but also the abduction of a number of other residents of Stariye Atagi perpetrated by the same group on the same date. 197. On 17 May 2003 the investigation was suspended again and then on 13 December 2003 it was resumed. 198. On 20 January 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 199. On 25 March 2004 the investigation was suspended again and then on 27 September 2004 it was resumed, following orders from the supervising prosecutor to that effect. 200. On 14 November 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 201. The investigation was subsequently suspended on several occasions, including on 26 November 2005, 26 August 2006 and 5 April 2008. It was most recently suspended on 25 December 2011. 202. The criminal proceedings appear to be still pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 203. On 5 and 20 April 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant and three of the applicants’ relatives, Ms Kh.R.D., Ms Kh.D.D. and Ms Ya.S., whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the account submitted by the applicants to the Court. 204. On various dates between April and June 2001 the investigators questioned the first and sixth applicants and six of their relatives and neighbours, whose statements corroborated the account of events they submitted to the Court. 205. On 6 June 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements and added that the same group of abductors had also abducted a fellow elderly villager, Mr K.I., who had been released three days later. According to the latter, he had been detained with the applicants’ relatives somewhere in the vicinity of a very large tent, helicopter runway and tarmac; it had most probably been the main military base of the federal forces in Khankala. 206. On 22 January 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who added to her previous statements that she and her relatives had attempted to obtain the release of their abducted relatives in exchange for money, but on 15 March 2001 both her son and nephew had been taken from Khankala to elsewhere. 207. On 6 March 2004 the investigators questioned the sixth applicant, whose statement was similar to the one given by the first applicant. In addition, he stated that after the abduction he had visited the military base in Khankala, where an officer named Sergey had told him that his relatives had been transferred elsewhere. In 2002 the witness had learnt that Mr Said‑Ibragim Sangariyev and Mr Idris Sangariyev had been allegedly detained in remand prison (SIZO) no.60/1 in Rostov-on-Don; he had gone there, but the information had turned out to be incorrect. 208. On various dates between July and December 2004 the investigators questioned a number of local residents and the local police officers, whose statements did not yield any new information. 209. On 17 October 2005 the investigators questioned Mr K.I., whose statement corroborated that of the first applicant given on 6 June 2001 (see paragraph 205 above). 210. On 20 October 2005 the investigators questioned the first and sixth applicants, who reiterated their previous statements and added that they had been aware that their abducted sons had been members of illegal armed groups. 211. On 14 November 2006 the investigators questioned the sixth applicant and three of his relatives again, whose statements did not yield any new information. 212. On 19 March 2008 the first applicant was questioned again by the investigators. She provided a detailed description of the events and stated that the abductors had been military servicemen who had used armoured vehicles. On the same date the second applicant and three of the applicants’ relatives were questioned; they too asserted that the abductors had been military servicemen. (c) The applicants’ contact with the authorities 213. On 21 December 2001 the first applicant complained to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office that the investigation of the abduction had been ineffective and that the investigators had failed to provide her with updates as to its progress. 214. On 1 August and 9 October 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that on 6 June 2001 the investigation had been suspended, and that on 1 August 2002 the proceedings had been resumed for failure on the part of the investigators to take a number of steps. 215. On 14 May 2003 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation had been resumed. The letter also stated, amongst other things: “... the investigation has been unable to establish exactly which law-enforcement agency abducted the two men... in connection with this it was suspended on 30 January 2003.” 216. On various dates in November 2003 the Department of the Execution of Sentences for the Rostov and Volgograd Regions informed the applicants that their abducted relatives were not being detained in their detention facilities. 217. On 27 December 2003 the Chechnya FSB replied to the applicants that Mr Said-Ibragim Sangariyev and Mr Idris Sangariyev were not listed in their database as people involved in illegal activities. 218. On 5 May 2005 the applicants complained to the investigators of a lack of information about the proceedings. 219. On 17 March and 17 May 2004 and 15 February 2005 various military prosecutors’ offices replied to the applicants that their inquiries had not established that military servicemen had been involved in the abduction. 220. On various dates between 2002 and 2005 the applicants complained about the investigation to a number of public and military prosecutors’ offices, the police, the military commanders’ offices and different levels and departments of the Federal Security Service (the FSB). In their complaints the applicants described the circumstances of the abduction and stressed that the perpetrators had been working for the State authorities, driven around in military vehicles and used portable radios. In reply the authorities forwarded the applicants’ complaints to the investigators or other law-enforcement agencies for examination. 221. On 14 February 2008 the first applicant complained to the Grozny District Court that the investigation had been ineffective and requested that it be resumed and conducted effectively. The complaint was allowed on 6 March 2008. 222. On 14 February 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators to inform her of the progress of the criminal proceedings. No reply was given to the request. 223. The applicants, Mr Sultan Nutayev, who was born in 1958, and Ms Tamara Nutayeva, who was born in 1959, live in Stariye Atagi in the Grozny district, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 224. The applicants are the parents of Mr Saykhan Nutayev, who was born in 1983. 225. At the material time, the village of Stariye Atagi was under curfew. It was surrounded by military checkpoints situated on all roads leading to and from the settlement. A military unit of the Russian federal forces was stationed on the outskirts of the village, on the premises of a former mill factory (“the mill”). According to the applicants, the mill was used as a filtering point by the military for the processing and detention of local residents detained during special operations (see Arzu Akhmadova and Others v. Russia, no. 13670/03, § 10, 8 January 2009). 226. At about 5 a.m. on 26 February 2003 a group of about twenty armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in two grey UAZ minivans and two VAZ‑2121 (“Niva”) cars. The vehicles surrounded the house. Some of the servicemen were wearing masks; some of them had helmets on. They broke into the applicants’ house and ordered everyone to show them their identity documents. They then grabbed Mr Saykhan Nutayev, forced him outside and put him into one of the vehicles. The applicants, accompanied by a neighbour, got in a car and followed the abductors to the premises of the military unit at the mill. There they tried to gain access to the military compound, but to no avail. The servicemen on duty at the time denied having seen any cars leaving or entering the premises. 227. The applicants have not seen their son since 26 February 2003. 228. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 229. On 28 February 2003 the applicants reported their son’s abduction by military servicemen to the Grozny district prosecutor. On the same date the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 230. On 11 March 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 42043. 231. On 22 March 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. 232. On 11 May 2003 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof. 233. On 16 March 2006 the investigation was resumed. The applicants were informed thereof. 234. On 25 March 2006 the Chechnya Federal Security Service informed the investigators that Mr Saykhan Nutayev had been a member of illegal armed groups. 235. On 15 April 2006 the investigation was again suspended. 236. On 19 April 2012 the investigation was resumed. The proceedings are still pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 237. On 28 February 2003 the investigators questioned the first and second applicants, whose statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account furnished to the Court. In addition, they told the investigators that immediately after the abduction, when they had followed the tracks left by the abductors with a neighbour, through the gates of the military compound they had seen the UAZ vehicle used to take their son away. 238. On 28 February 2003 the investigators also questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Ms Ya.K., whose statement concerning the abduction corroborated the account submitted by the applicants to the Court. In addition, the witness added that she had followed the tracks left by the abductors’ vehicles with the applicants; they had led them to the premises of the military unit stationed on the outskirts of the village. They had not been allowed to enter the compound. 239. On 27 March 2003 the investigators questioned the applicants and Ms Ya.K. again, all of whom reiterated their previous statements. 240. On 22 March 2006 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated his previous statements. 241. On 4 April 2006 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Ms Kh.T., who corroborated the applicants’ statements and added that on the night of the abduction she had seen four military vehicles and two APCs on their street. 242. On 5 April 2006 the investigators questioned the second applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements. (c) The applicants’ contact with the authorities 243. On 30 June 2008 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 replied to a request by the applicant that because of the rules of jurisdiction they did not have any information about the investigation. 244. On 17 December 2009 and 17 August 2010 the applicants requested the investigators to update them on the progress of the proceedings. On 12 January and 23 August 2010 respectively the authorities replied that the investigation had been suspended and that the applicants had the right to review certain documents from the case file. 245. On 11 March 2011 the applicants again requested the investigators to update them on the progress of the proceedings. No reply was given to this request. 246. On 26 April 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators that the proceedings be resumed. No reply was given to this request either. 247. The applicants, Ms Khadisht (also spelt Khadishat) Saltuyeva, born in 1955, and Mr Abdul-Khalim Saltuyev, born in 1946, live in Urus‑Martan, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov, a lawyer practising in Grozny. 248. The applicants are the parents of Mr Aslanbek Saltuyev, who was born in 1981. 249. At the material time, the town of Urus-Martan was under curfew; it was surrounded by military checkpoints. A number of law-enforcement agencies, including the military commander’s office, were operating in the settlement. 250. At about 2.30 a.m. on 14 October 2002 a group of ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms wearing head torches broke into the applicants’ house and took away their son, Mr Aslanbek Saltuyev. The intruders, who were equipped with portable radios, took him to the UAZ minivan which was waiting in the street and drove off. The applicants saw that the servicemen had also arrived in an APC, a URAL lorry and another UAZ vehicle. 251. The applicants have not seen their son since 14 October 2002. 252. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 253. On 14 October 2002 the applicants reported the abduction to a number of law-enforcement agencies and on 7 November 2002 the Urus‑Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 61141. 254. On 27 December 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 255. On 7 January 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended and then resumed on 19 June 2003. 256. On 9 July 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene. 257. On 25 July 2003 it was again suspended and then resumed on 6 June 2005. The applicants were informed thereof. 258. On 6 July 2005 the investigation was suspended again. It was subsequently suspended and resumed on several occasions; it was most recently resumed on 25 May 2011 and then suspended on 3 June 2011. The applicants were informed of that suspension. 259. The investigation appears to be still pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 260. On 15 October 2002 the investigators questioned the first and second applicants, whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. 261. On 15 October 2002 the investigators also questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Ms Z.V.Kh., whose statement corroborated those given by the applicants. 262. On 27 December 2002 and then on 11 June 2005 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who reiterated her previous statement. 263. On 28 July 2005 the investigators questioned the second applicant, who reiterated her previous statement. 264. On 28 July 2005 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours, Ms Z.A.Kh. and Ms S.G., whose statements corroborated those of the applicants. 265. On 28 June 2007 the investigators questioned the first and second applicants again, who reiterated their previous statements. (c) The applicants’ contact with the authorities 266. From the documents submitted it appears that on various occasions between 2003 and 2007 the applicants complained to prosecutors at various levels of a lack of information about the progress of the criminal proceedings and the way they were being conducted. 267. On 28 April 2011 the applicants complained to the head of the Achkhoy-Martan investigations department of a lack of information about the progress of the investigation and requested to be allowed to review the case file. On 5 May 2011 their complaint was rejected. 268. On 17 May 2011 the applicants complained to the Urus‑Martan District Court that the investigation had been ineffective and requested that they be allowed to access the case file. On 25 May 2011 their complaint was allowed by the court. 269. The applicants are: (1) Mr Khalit Salamov, born in 1938, (2) Ms Bikazhu Dzhambulatova, born in 1946, and (3) Mr Imran Salamov, born in 1977. The first and second applicants live in Katyr-Yurt in the Achkhoy‑Martan district, the Chechen Republic. The third applicant lives in Grozny. The applicants were represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. 270. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Usman Salamov, who was born in 1977. The third applicant is his brother. 271. At the material time, the settlement of Katyr-Yurt was under curfew. The applicants lived with Mr Usman Salamov in Chapayeva Street. 272. At about 4 a.m. on 12 November 2002 a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the applicants’ house in two APCs and a VAZ car. They broke into the house, quickly searched it, took Mr Usman Salamov outside, forced him into one of the APCs and drove off. 273. On the same night at least one other resident of the village was allegedly abducted by the same group of servicemen (see the case of Ilyasova v. Russia, no. 26966/06, §§ 7 and 112, 10 June 2010). 274. Later the same day at about 4 .30 p.m. the policemen from the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD arrived at the applicants’ house and dug two plastic barrels with firearms and ammunition out of their garden. 275. The applicants have not seen their relative since 12 November 2002. 276. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 277. On 29 January 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44015 and examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 278. On 28 April 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 279. On 29 April 2003 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 12 September 2004. The applicants were informed thereof. 280. The investigation was again suspended on an unspecified date between 2004 and 2005 and resumed on 16 June 2008; then suspended again on 16 July 2008 and resumed on 15 June 2010. The applicants were informed thereof. 281. On 8 July 2010 the investigators examined the crime scene again. 282. On 15 July 2010 the investigation was suspended again. The applicants were informed thereof. 283. The last suspension of the investigation took place on 13 September 2011 and on 21 April 2012 the proceedings were resumed. They are still pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 284. On 24 January 2003 the investigators questioned the first and second applicants and their neighbour, Ms B.D., all of whom provided statements of their relative’s abduction similar to the account submitted to the Court. 285. On 8 February 2003 the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative, Ms M.S., whose statement about the abduction corroborated those of the applicants. 286. On 11 and 28 April 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated his previous statement. 287. On the same date the investigators questioned two of the applicants’ neighbours, Mr R.R. and Mr Sh.Kh., whose statements corroborated those given by the applicants. 288. On 26 and 27 June 2008 the investigators questioned seven of the applicants’ relatives and neighbours. No new information was obtained. 289. On various dates in June and July 2010 the investigators questioned three of the applicants’ close relatives and three representatives of local authorities. No new information was obtained. 290. On 12 September 2011 the investigators questioned the second applicant again, who reiterated her previous statement. (c) The applicants’ contact with the authorities 291. On 16 July 2009 the applicants complained to the head of the Achkhoy-Martan investigations department that they did not have information about the progress of the investigation and requested to be allowed to review the case file. On the same date the investigators replied that the applicants could obtain copies of a few documents from the file and suspended the investigation. 292. On 2 February 2010 the applicants complained to the Achkhoy‑Martan District Court that the investigation of their son’s abduction had been ineffective and requested that it be resumed. On 10 June 2010 this complaint was rejected by the District Court, as the investigation had been resumed on 7 June 2010. 293. The applicants appealed against the decision to suspend investigation of 15 July 2010 to the District Court, which rejected the complaint on 30 August 2010. 294. On 28 January 2011 the applicants again requested to be allowed to review the case file. On 9 February 2011 the investigators replied that the applicants could take copies of a few documents from the file. 295. On 25 July 2011 the applicants again requested to be provided access to the case file. On 1 August 2011 their complaint was rejected by the investigators. 296. The applicants are: (1) Mr Islam Dashtayev, born in 1991, (2) Mr Bislan Dashtayev, born in 1993, (3) Mr Yusup Dashtayev, born in 1994, (4) Mr Shamkhan Dashtayev, born in 1997, (5) Mr Khamzat Dashtayev, born in 1999, (6) Ms Kulsum Abubakarova, born in 1957, (7) Ms Yakhita Abdurzakova (also referred to as Akhmadova), born in 1954, and 8) Mr Musaid Akhmadov, born in 1953. The applicants live in Noviye Atagi, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 297. The first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants are the sons of Mr Imran Dashtayev, who was born in 1955; the sixth applicant is his wife. The seventh and eighth applicants are the parents of Mr Idris Akhmadov, who was born in 1982. 298. According to the applicants, who all live on the same street, on 20 July 2003 the Russian federal forces conducted a sweeping-up operation in Noviye Atagi, as a result of which at least three local residents were arrested, including the applicants’ relatives. Military checkpoints were situated on all of the roads leading to and from the settlement. The area was under curfew. 299. At about 5 a.m. on 20 July 2003 a convoy of military vehicles, consisting of at least three APCs (with hull numbers 100, 101 and F-121), one URAL lorry (with registration number 75-99 6 RUS) and a UAZ all‑terrain car, arrived at the applicants’ street. A group of about fifty heavily-armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles and broke into at least four houses in the street, including those of the applicants. 300. A group of about fifteen servicemen climbed over the fence and broke into the house of the Akhmadov family. They checked the identity documents of the male residents, quickly searched the house without producing a warrant or giving any explanation for their actions and took Mr Idris Akhmadov outside. The servicemen also took some of the family’s valuables. They put Mr Idris Akhmadov into the UAZ minivan, and then they dragged him out and forced him into the APC and drove off. 301. At about 5.30 a.m. a group of fifteen to twenty servicemen in a yellow UAL lorry with registration number 75 99 86 broke into the house of the Dashtayev family. Several APCs and a UAZ minivan were waiting on a neighbouring street. They found Mr Imran Dashtayev in the yard and demanded his passport. His passport had been submitted for renewal, so the servicemen told his relatives that they would take him away for an identity check. They then forced him into the yellow lorry and drove off. 302. The applicants have not seen their relatives since 20 July 2003. 303. The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a) Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 304. On 21 July 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22106 and examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 305. On the same date the sixth and eighth applicants were granted victim status. 306. On 21 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 307. On 23 March 2004 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on an unspecified date. 308. On 21 July 2005 the eighth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 309. On 6 July 2005 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 19 March 2008. 310. On 26 June 2008 it was suspended again and then resumed on 23 April 2012. The criminal proceedings are currently pending. (b) Main witness statements taken by the investigators 311. On 21 July 2003 the investigators questioned the sixth and eighth applicants, whose detailed accounts of the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. 312. On the same date the investigators questioned a local resident, Mr I.T., who had been detained by the same group of abductors on the same night. He stated that he had been beaten by them, questioned about his involvement in illegal armed groups and then released later that evening. 313. The investigators also questioned the seventh applicant and two of the applicants’ neighbours, Mr Kh.S. and Ms E.M. that day, whose statements corroborated those of the sixth and eighth applicants. 314. On 24 July 2003 the investigators questioned officer D.K. who manned checkpoint no. 112 in the vicinity of the applicants’ settlement. According to him, on the night of 19 July 2003 a convoy of forty vehicles from the Security Service of the Chechen President had passed though the checkpoint two times: during the evening and then the following morning. 315. On 4 August 2003 the investigators questioned officer A.P., who was stationed with his military unit no. 2 on the premises of the old mill on the outskirts of Noviye Atagi. He denied having any knowledge of either a special operation in the settlement or the vehicles used by the abductors. 316. On 22 June 2005 the investigators questioned the eighth applicant again, who reiterated his previous statement. 317. On 14 and 17 April 2008 the investigators questioned the eighth applicant’s relative, Mr I.A., and his neighbour, Mr Sh.I., whose statements corroborated those of the eighth applicant. (c) The applicants’ contact with the authorities 318. On 4 January 2004 the eighth applicant complained to the head of the military base in Khankala about his son’s abduction by federal servicemen. On 25 March 2004 the military authorities in Khankala replied that the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction had not been confirmed. 319. On 8 February 2005 the eighth applicant complained to the Russian Prosecutor General about the abduction and the investigators’ failure to take important steps. In their reply of 25 April 2005, the investigators informed the applicant that the investigation had been resumed on 22 April 2005. 320. On 3 July 2008 the sixth applicant’s relative, Ms K.D., complained to the investigators that the investigation had been ineffective. On 4 April 2008 the investigators replied that the proceedings were in progress. 321. On an unspecified date in July or August 2011 the investigators replied to a request by the applicants for information of 24 July 2011, stating that the investigation had been suspended on 26 June 2008. 322. In reply to numerous complaints by the applicants lodged on various dates between 2004 and 2011 about the abduction, the investigators gave similar replies to the effect that the investigation was in progress and that they were taking all possible measures to have the crime solved.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Zagreb. She has suffered since her early childhood from cerebral palsy and uses a wheel chair. In 1968 she was deprived of her legal capacity on account of “her physical illness and intellectual underdevelopment”. On 10 July 1979 her legal capacity was fully restored by a ruling of the Zagreb Municipal Court. 7. On 12 November 2009 the Pešćenica Social Welfare Centre (hereinafter “the Centre”) asked the Zagreb Municipal Court to institute proceedings with a view to partially depriving the applicant of her legal capacity in order to prevent her from disposing of her assets. They relied on a previous ruling of 1968 by the same court by which the applicant had been deprived of her legal capacity (see the preceding paragraph). They further asserted that the applicant had been suffering from “grave bodily damage” (velika tjelesna oštećenja) since early childhood, as she had been diagnosed with cerebral palsy and various chronic illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure and defective eyesight. 8. They further asserted, relying on a statement given by the applicant’s son at the Centre and a report by the Centre’s social worker, that the applicant’s condition had worsened after she had undergone an operation on her head on 9 September 2008. Since then she had suffered from personality changes, manifested in managing her money in an irrational manner, such as by not paying the monthly instalments for the purchase of her flat, electricity, water and other bills, and by purchasing mobile telephone cards instead of food. This could have led to the applicant’s eviction from the flat she occupied, as she had already received a final warning that a civil action in that respect was to be lodged. 9. The Centre’s request was supported by evidence, such as an electricity bill of 27,625.70 Croatian kunas (HRK) dated 30 March 2009, a copy of a final demand for payment of monthly instalments for the purchase of the applicant’s flat, with the debt amounting to HRK 8,290.25 as at 7 March 2009, a notice that the water supply for the applicant’s flat would be stopped as of 25 May 2009 on account of non-payment of a debt in the amount of HRK 4,447.42, and a debt recovery notice for the amount of HRK 451.70 payable to Croatian Radio and Television (HRT). 10. On 28 October 2009 the Centre appointed its employee, Ms J.T., as the applicant’s legal guardian in the proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court. In the proceedings before that court the guardian gave her full consent to the Centre’s application. The applicant was represented by a lawyer of her own choosing. 11. The Municipal Court heard the applicant on 24 March 2010 and established that: “The respondent was found at her address in a wheelchair. She gave very meaningful answers; [she] stressed that she acted autonomously, kept her flat tidy, prepared her meals and was provided with help by her son and a tenant. She moved about independently in her wheelchair and did her own shopping, [and] paid [her own] bills, which gave rise to difficulties during winter. She stated that in the period when she had underwent a head surgery in September [2008], she had been late with paying her utility bills ... She did not agree with the proceedings [being brought] and considered that she did not need a guardian. She stressed that she regularly took [her] prescribed medication ... It is to be noted that the respondent was presentable and her home was tidy.” 12. In her written submissions the applicant explained that during her hospitalisation she had empowered her son to retrieve money from her bank account and pay the utility bills, which he had not done but had instead taken the money for himself. She asked that her son be examined by the court. 13. A psychiatric report commissioned for the purposes of the proceedings, drawn up on 12 April 2010 by D.P. and G.M., in so far as relevant reads as follows: “A psychiatric examination of the respondent was carried out on 3 April 2010 at her home ... She stated that she had completed elementary school and had been an average pupil, that she had studied law for one year and knew all about the law. To me she said: ‘You know how it was when you operated on me.’ She is dissatisfied with the court proceedings [being brought]: ‘I dislike the Pešćenica [Social Welfare Centre] because they attempted to send me to [a home in] Novi Marof.’ And in respect of her son she said: ‘I am sorry when someone blackmails him’. She stated that she had been paying all her bills and that ‘I previously had a huge negative [balance], [because] I had to pay for the hospital’. She stated that she had a lot of acquaintances who were her former lodgers, whom she saw regularly when out and about in her wheelchair in her neighbourhood and ‘they all respect me’. Upon a direct question she denied having any mental problems. Psychological status: conscious, contact easily established, uncertain about time, in other respects well oriented. Has a wide and viscous (viskozni) thought process, with loss of determining tendency. Interacts without distance. In thought content confabulatory with a paranoid position, projections and infantile explanation. Basic disposition is elevated. Intellectually – memory functions are primarily insufficient at the LMR level, additionally compromised with psychoorganic type. Lacks insight into her condition. Marija Ivinović suffers from MB. Little, parapresis spast., monoparesis ext. sup. spast. sin., LMR, condition after brain haemorrhage, condition after stroke, condition after meningoencephalitis, with a lack of insight into her condition [and] the need for and purpose of treatment. Owing to this, she is not able to entirely look after her personal needs, rights and interests. Also, because of her state of health and lack of insight she may jeopardise the rights and interests of others.” 14. On 19 May 2010 the applicant lodged written submissions whereby she objected to the psychiatrists’ findings, stating that it was not clear how they had concluded that she was unable to properly dispose of her money, given that the debts referred to had been incurred by her son when she had been hospitalised. 15. At a hearing held on 21 October 2010 the psychiatrists gave the following opinion evidence: “We entirely endorse our written report of 3 April 2010 and to the objections filed by the respondent we would state the following: on the basis of the enclosed medical records, social history and our own examination we have established that the respondent suffers from Morbus Littlee. She also suffers from triparesis with preserved functions of her right hand, mild mental retardation, and conditions following a brain haemorrhage and meningoencephalitis. Her intellectual capabilities are, owing to the above-mentioned [conditions], additionally compromised on the psychoorganic type. During the interview we noticed confabulations in the content of her thoughts, that is to say fabricated content, a paranoid position, in particular as regards her close family and the employees of the social welfare centre, and infantile explanation. The respondent lacks insight into her condition. All this led us [to conclude] that the respondent does not possess sufficient intellectual capacity to adequately protect her own rights and interests, and because of her lack of insight she might also jeopardise the rights and interests of others. We therefore consider that the application for deprivation of the respondent’s legal capacity as regards disposing of her money and assets and as regards taking decisions about her medical treatment, is appropriate.” 16. On 21 October 2010 the Zagreb Municipal Court partially deprived the applicant of her legal capacity, thereby stopping her from disposing of her money and other assets and from making independent decisions concerning her medical treatment. The ruling relied exclusively on the opinion given by the two psychiatrists and extensively repeated their findings stated in their written report and their oral evidence given at the hearing of 21 October 2010. 17. The applicant lodged an appeal on 11 November 2010, in which she argued that partially depriving her of her legal capacity solely on the basis of the psychiatric report had not been justified, because the psychiatrists had lacked knowledge of how she spent her money and how she disposed of her assets. She argued that she had purchased the flat where she lived herself and there was no danger that she would give it up. The assertion that she was paranoid as regards her close family members was not correct. She had had troubled relations with her son at times because he had moved into her flat with his girlfriend and her daughter and had had an interest in having her removed from the flat and placed in a home. Therefore, she had successfully sought their eviction from her flat. She had also changed her bank and her son no longer had authority to use her credit card. She lived a peaceful life, and was a member of the Association of Disabled Persons with Cerebral Palsy and Poliomyelitis. The court conducting the proceedings had had the chance to establish that normal communication with her was possible and that she lived in a tidy flat. The Centre had not proven the need for her to be partially deprived of her legal capacity. Only a bookkeeping expert could have established the facts concerning her debts. 18. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Bjelovar County Court on 26 January 2012, which again relied extensively on the psychiatric report. The appeal court added that the applicant had been hospitalised between 9 and 25 September 2008 and 23 October and 13 November 2008, whereas the unpaid bills (see paragraph 9 above) were dated 9 April 2009 (electricity bill of HRK 27,625.70), 18 March 2009 (HRK 8,290.25 in monthly instalments for the purchase of the flat) and 22 May 2009 (water bill of HRK 4,477.42), which indicated that the debts concerned a much longer period than the applicant’s hospitalisation. 19. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint, in which she repeated the arguments from her appeal, stressing that the debts in question had been incurred during the period in which she had been hospitalised and her son had had her bank card. Instead of paying her bills he had used the money from her account for his own needs. She added that only one of the psychiatrists who had drawn up the report on her mental state had interviewed her. She also stressed that it was entirely unclear what rights and interests of others she might jeopardise. The complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 13 June 2012.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The first applicant was born in 1948, the second applicant was born in 1976, the third applicant was born in 1980 and they all live in Slatina. The fourth applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Osijek, and the fifth applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Josipovac. 6. The first applicant is the husband, the second and third applicants are children, and the fourth and fifth applicants are sisters of the late M.B.B., a lawyer who was based in Slatina. 7. M.B.B. represented M.N. in divorce proceedings instituted in December 2001 in the Slatina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Slatini) against her husband, A.N. 8. A first hearing in those proceedings was held on 12 February 2002, attended by the parties and the lawyer M.B.B. The court heard the parties’ arguments and decided to request a report from the local social services. It then adjourned the hearing until 9 April 2002. 9. According to A.N.’s police records, he had a history of alcohol abuse, violent behaviour and unlawful possession of firearms. In May 1993 the Slatina Police (Policijska Postaja Slatina – hereinafter “the police”) instituted minor offences proceedings against him for beating up his daughter and wife under the influence of alcohol and making serious threats using firearms. On that occasion, the police seized from A.N. a rifle with a dozen bullets and a hand grenade. There is, however, no further information on the outcome of these proceedings. Furthermore, between 2000 and 2002 A.N. was reported three times for family violence and twice for a breach of the peace and public order, and in May 2001 the police lodged a criminal complaint against him with the State Attorney’s Office for making serious death threats to his wife. 10. On 16 October 2000 the Slatina Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Slatini) found A.N. guilty of the minor offence of family violence and fined him 500 Croatian kunas (HRK). During the proceedings, M.N. explained that the divorce proceedings were pending before the courts and that A.N. had contested them. She also explained that she had ended up in hospital after having been severely beaten by A.N. 11. On 25 July 2001 the Slatina Municipal Court found A.N. guilty of the criminal offence of making serious death threats to his wife and sentenced him to two months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year. 12. According to a police report drawn up on 25 March 2002, M.N., accompanied by A.N., attended the police station on 21 March 2002, alleging that her husband had been harassing her. She made no other complaints of possible threats or violence. She further explained that A.N. had previously beaten her up and had been convicted in the minor offences and criminal courts. She also pointed out that their divorce proceedings were pending and that a hearing was scheduled for 9 April 2002. On the same occasion, A.N. argued that he did not want his wife to see other men. The police officer who interviewed the couple, Ž.J., warned A.N. to stop harassing his wife and instructed them to settle all their disputes in the divorce proceedings. The report also contains a note suggesting that during the interview, A.N. and M.N. showed no signs of aggression, alcohol abuse or agitation. 13. Afterwards, police officer Ž.J. informed his superior officer, M.Kr., of the interview. He was told to make a short note of the event in the logbook and that it was not necessary to draft a report or take any further action. 14. According to further police reports, at around 7 a.m. the following day, A.N. went to a bank in Slatina with the intention of withdrawing all his money. He told a bank employee, D.K., whom he had met before, that they would not see each other again. While speaking to the bank employee, A.N. was in tears. When she asked him what was troubling him, he said that “it will be talked about”. He also shook hands with several other people who then told the bank manager, F.S., to contact the police. F.S. followed A.N. out of the bank and asked him what was troubling him. A.N. responded that he was sick of everything; his wife, who was having affairs with other men, and his son, who was a drug addict, and that he was going to do something and nobody could stop him. 15. At 7.15 a.m. F.S. informed the police of the event, saying that he was afraid that A.N. could do something to himself or others. 16. At 7.17 a.m. an on-duty commanding officer, T.S., sent a patrol of two police officers, M.L. and I.B., to the bank. At the same time he checked A.N.’s police records and saw that he had a violent background. He therefore informed the police chief, M.Ko., who ordered a police patrol to be sent to A.N.’s home address. At 7.38 a.m. M.L. and I.B. were sent to look for him there. 17. The report submitted by police officers M.L. and I.B. indicates that they found A.N. at home. He approached them at the front of his house and said that he was sick of everything, and that he had withdrawn the money for his funeral because he was going to kill himself either that day or the next by jumping under a train, and that there was nothing they could do about it. He also said that he had already written a suicide note, and complained that the day before he had been at the police station because his wife had been seeing another man. The police officers noted in their report that A.N. had appeared sober and had not shown any signs of aggressiveness, and had not mentioned his wife or anybody else or that he might hurt anybody. They therefore advised him that everything was going to be fine and left. 18. Upon their arrival at the police station at 8.06 a.m. the police officers reported on the interview to the on-duty commanding officer M.T., who had taken over from T.S. (see paragraph 16 above) in the meantime. 19. According to a report drawn up by M.T. on 22 March 2002, M.L. and I.B, the police officers who had visited A.N. at his home (see paragraph 17 above), had reported to him that A.N. was contemplating suicide because of his family problems, and that he had mentioned his divorce and said that nobody could stop him. At 8.12 a.m. M.T. informed the deputy police chief for the criminal police, M.B., of the event who instructed him to immediately inform the Slatina Health Centre (Dom zdravlja Slatina – hereinafter “the hospital”) and Slatina Social Care Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Slatina). He informed the hospital doctor, I.F., at 8.15 a.m. and the Social Care Centre at 8.18 a.m. The doctor had said that he would see with a nearby psychiatric hospital whether they could admit A.N. for treatment, while an official from the Social Care Centre had said that she had known A.N.’s situation very well and told the police to contact the hospital. 20. Later during the investigation the police found that officer M.T. had falsified his report, as he had actually informed doctor I.F. at 9.40 a.m., not 8.15 a.m. as indicated, and had informed the Social Care Centre at 9.37 a.m., not 8.18 a.m. as indicated (see paragraph 19 above and paragraphs 35 and 46 below). 21. Meanwhile, sometime after 8.00 a.m., A.N. returned to the bank, shouting at F.S. for having called the police. He then went to a nearby bar for a drink and at around 9.00 a.m. went to the police station. He met the on-duty commanding officer M.T. there, and demanded to know why the police had been to see him. M.T. explained that the police had had information that he had been having some problems. A.N. replied that he was going to solve his problems himself and that he was going to do what he intended. He then left the police station. 22. A.N. then went in search of his wife, who started work in a bakery shop at 10 a.m. He waited for her in a nearby street he knew she had to pass when going to work. When A.N. saw her, he approached her and kicked her in the head, knocking her to the ground. He then fired one shot at her and went to leave, but then returned to shoot her a further three times. She survived, despite receiving serious injuries to her head, stomach and arm. 23. After shooting his wife, A.N. went to M.B.B.’s office, which was only some three hundred metres away. M.B.B. was in the office at the time with her secretary and a client, A.R. Immediately upon entering the office A.N. fired a shot in M.B.B.’s direction, but hit her desk. The client attempted to talk him round, but when A.N. threatened to kill him, he ran away. A.N. then attempted to shoot the secretary, who was calling the police, but his pistol jammed and she managed to escape. A.N. then approached M.B.B. and shot her dead by firing three bullets at her, of which two were fatal. 24. In the meantime, some onlookers had informed the police of the incidents and several police units were sent to search for the gunman. 25. At around 10.35 a.m. the police arrived at A.N.’s house and ordered him to surrender and go with them to the station in connection with the investigation into the shootings. He refused, before throwing two hand grenades at the police officers and starting to shoot at them. 26. When special police units stormed into A.N.’s house at around 3.26 p.m., they found him with a self-inflicted head wound, the type of weapon that had been used for the shootings, and a suicide note. He was immediately taken to hospital, but died the next day. 27. On the same day as the incidents occurred, an investigating judge of the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru) and a Deputy County State Attorney conducted crime scene investigations with the assistance of police forensic scientists. In A.N.’s house the police found another suicide note, a number of different bullets and an empty hand grenade cartridge. They also discovered that the weapon used by A.N. had been reported missing and that its owner had died in 1997. 28. The investigating judge ordered a forensic examination of the bodies which confirmed that M.B.B. had suffered a violent death as a result of the gunshots. 29. During the investigation the police interviewed a number of people who provided information concerning A.N. and the course of the events in which he had killed M.B.B. and attempted to kill his wife. The police drew up reports of the interviews but they were not signed or otherwise attested by the witnesses. 30. According to the police reports, A.N. and M.N.’s children, E.N. and M.B., provided information about the problems in their family and the frequent violent incidents mainly caused as a result of A.N.’s alcohol abuse. The incidents were confirmed by M.N. in her interview with the police. She also stated that he had been angry at her lawyer M.B.B., but had not threatened to kill her. 31. M.B.B.’s secretary described the course of events in which A.N. had attempted to shoot her and killed the lawyer M.B.B., which was also confirmed by the client A.R. who had been in the office at the time (see paragraph 23 above). Another witness, N.M., a waiter in a nearby bar, described how he had heard gunshots and later found M.B.B. dead in her office. 32. The police also interviewed the bank employees D.K. and F.S., who provided information about A.N.’s behaviour in the bank (see paragraph 14 above), and two other witnesses, I.T. and A.K., who had also been in the bank when A.N. was there. The two bank customers stated that A.N. had seemed disturbed and looked as though he had needed some help, but had not said he was going to kill anybody. 33. An acquaintance of A.N., Ž.M., told police that for the past year A.N. had been saying that he was going to kill his wife. After the incidents at issue, A.N. called him and said that he killed his wife and shot her lawyer. Information to that effect was also provided by another acquaintance of A.N., I.Š., who said that when he got drunk A.N. would say that he was going to kill somebody but without specifying whom. On the morning in question he had seen A.N., who had shown him a handful of bullets. 34. A.N.’s brother-in-law, L.Z., stated that A.N. had complained that during a hearing in the divorce proceedings M.B.B. had prevented him from raising all his arguments before the court, and that he should do something about it but without specifying what. He had never mentioned that he was going to kill anybody. His other brother-in-law, F.Z., stated that a couple of days before the incidents his wife Ž.Z. had told him that she had seen A.N., who had told her that he was going to kill his wife and her lawyer, but she had not thought that he had really meant it. This was confirmed by Ž.Z. herself in her statement to the police. 35. During the investigation the police interviewed doctor I.F. who had taken the police’s call to the hospital on the morning of the incidents (see paragraph 19 above). He stated that he had received the call at around 9.40 a.m., not 8.20 a.m. as reported in the media. He also provided evidence to that effect because his telephone had the ability to record times and dates of calls. Based on the information he had received, he had attempted to contact a nearby psychiatric hospital to arrange for A.N.’s possible hospitalisation. However, he had not managed to speak to any of the doctors, as he had been told by a nurse that they had all been in a meeting which she had not been allowed to interrupt. 36. The results of the investigation were submitted to the Slatina Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državni odvjetništvo u Slatini) to assess whether the police could be held liable for their actions in connection with the incidents at issue, particularly with regard to the application of section 24 of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act. That provision stated that an individual could be admitted to a psychiatric institution where there was a reasonable suspicion that the individual posed an immediate threat to his life or health, or the life or health of others (see paragraph 81 below). 37. On 16 August 2002 the Slatina Municipal State Attorney’s Office issued the following statement: “A.N. was a violent person against whom a criminal complaint had been made for making serious death threats to his wife and on several occasions was reported for the minor offences of family violence, abusive behaviour and inappropriately addressing police officers. On the day in question A.N., without any further elaboration, told police officers that he was going to kill himself because of his family problems. The police officer on duty, M.T., omitted to inform the hospital and Social Care Centre of the whole situation. Had there been coordination between the doctor and social worker, who had known the situation in A.N.’s family better, measures for the prevention of suicide could perhaps have been taken. In the circumstances, at the relevant time the police officers had no reason to treat A.N. as a mentally disturbed person within the meaning of section 24 of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act. ...” 38. On 22 March 2005 the applicants, through their lawyer, lodged a criminal complaint against police officer M.T. with the Slatina Municipal State Attorney’s Office, alleging that he had falsified the police records indicating the exact time he had contacted the hospital and Social Care Centre (see paragraphs 19 and 20 above). They also lodged a criminal complaint against police chief M.Ko. for abuse of power and authority, because he had failed to institute criminal proceedings against police officer M.T. 39. On 30 May 2005 the Slatina Municipal State Attorney’s Office rejected the criminal complaints against the police officers on the grounds that their actions did not constitute criminal offences. 40. On 10 June 2005 all five applicants and K.B., the mother of M.B.B., took over the prosecution as subsidiary prosecutors and lodged an indictment against the police officers in the Slatina Municipal Court. 41. During the proceedings police officer M.T. stated that after officers M.L. and I.B. had returned from their interview with A.N. (see paragraph 19 above), they had told him that A.N. had been agitated and had mentioned problems in his family, but had not made any threats. Sometime at around 8 a.m. he had therefore attempted to contact police chief M.Ko. to seek further instructions. After having failed twice to reach M.Ko., who had been out of his office, he had called the deputy police chief for the criminal police, M.B., who had instructed him to contact the hospital and Social Care Centre. He had then telephoned the hospital, but the number he had dialled had not been valid, so he had only managed to get the right number later when he had spoken to doctor I.F. When he had called the hospital for the first time he had written down the exact time on a piece of paper and then later had just taken that time for his report. 42. Doctor I.F. also gave his oral evidence during the proceedings. He testified that after he had received the information from the police about their interview with A.N., he had told the police that he would need to examine A.N. and then decide whether compulsory psychiatric treatment would be necessary. However, the police had not known where A.N. was at the time, so he had told them to find him. Approximately fifteen minutes later the hospital had received information about the shootings. 43. On 3 May 2006 the Slatina Municipal Court acquitted police officer M.T. on the grounds that there had been no evidence that he had deliberately falsified his report. The court also dismissed the charges against police chief M.Ko. on the grounds that the prosecution had become time-barred. 44. The judgment was confirmed on appeal by the Virovitica County Court (Županijski sud u Virovitici) on 21 September 2006. 45. On 18 April 2002 the Ministry of the Interior opened disciplinary proceedings against police officer M.Kr. for failing to report on the interview with A.N. and his wife on 21 March 2002 even though A.N.’s background and the information concerning their relationship warranted that such action be documented (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above). 46. On 27 May 2002 disciplinary proceedings were also opened against police officer M.T. for failing to immediately report the situation concerning A.N. on the morning of 22 March 2002 to the hospital as he had been instructed to do by his superior, and for falsifying his report about the times he had contacted the hospital and Social Care Centre (see paragraphs 19 and 20 above). 47. The first-instance Osijek Disciplinary Panel of the Ministry of the Interior (Prvostupanjski disciplinski sud u Osijeku) found police officer M.Kr. guilty on 10 October 2002 and sentenced him to a 15% reduction of salary, to be applied for one month. 48. On 5 November 2002 the disciplinary panel found police officer M.T. guilty and sentenced him to a 10% reduction of salary, to be applied for two months. 49. On 22 March 2005 the five applicants and K.B. lodged a civil action against the State in the Slatina Municipal Court, seeking damages for the authorities’ failure to protect their relative’s right to life. They relied on section 13 of the State Administration Act, which provides that the State is liable to compensate damage caused to a citizen, legal entity or other party for the unlawful or wrongful conduct of a State authority (see paragraph 83 below). 50. A first hearing was held on 6 July 2005, at which the trial court heard evidence from bank employees F.S. and M.S. 51. F.S. testified that after he had seen A.N. crying, he had asked him what had happened and A.N. replied that it would be talked about. He had then called the police, who arrived soon after. When he had told them what had happened, the police had just replied that they had known A.N. very well. A.N. had appeared totally unstable that morning, which had been noticeable to F.S. because he worked with people. Everybody in the bank had noticed that A.N. had been totally crazy, and F.S. had therefore called the police because he had thought that A.N. was a danger, primarily to himself, and should get medical treatment. When A.N. had entered the bank for the second time he had not calmed down and had been yelling at F.S. for calling the police about him. This version of events was confirmed by M.S. 52. At a hearing on 14 September 2005 the trial court heard evidence from doctor I.F. He testified that on the morning of 22 March 2002 at around 9.45 a.m. he had been informed by the police that A.N. had been behaving strangely and that he might do something bad. The police officer had not however known where A.N. was at the time. Doctor I.F. explained that the usual practice in such cases was to examine the person and then decide whether admission to hospital was necessary. He also specified that the police officer who had called him had said that A.N. could kill somebody or do something bad. This had prompted him to believe that his and the police’s intervention had been necessary, and that A.N. should be taken to the psychiatric hospital. Had the police managed to trace A.N., he would have examined him, because that had been the practice in similar cases and also in cases where somebody had threatened suicide. 53. At the same hearing the trial court questioned police chief M.Ko., who explained that A.N. was known to him because he had once been held at the station for violent behaviour. On the day in question he had given orders to the on-duty commanding officer to send a police patrol to A.N.’s home address and had then left the police station to attend to some other business. He had returned to the police station at around 9.55 a.m. and had been told of the shootings. 54. The next hearing was held on 23 November 2005, where the trial court heard evidence from M.N. She stated that A.N. had previously had a rifle, a handgun and a bomb which had been, at some point, confiscated from him by the police. He would also say that he was saving money to buy a handgun to kill her and two other people, but she had never known exactly whom. A.N. had had a problem with alcohol and when he would get drunk he would be violent. She had called the police on more than a hundred occasions, but sometimes they would come and sometimes they would not. A.N. had contested the divorce and the day before the incidents had threatened to kill her. She had reported that on the same day to the police, but they had done nothing about it. At the same hearing the trial court questioned bank employee D.F., who explained the course of the events in the bank (see paragraph 14 above). 55. A further hearing was held on 18 January 2006, at which the police officers M.L., M.T. and I.B. gave evidence. 56. M.L. testified that on the morning of the incident, he and police officer I.B. had been ordered to go to the bank because A.N. had been there and had been behaving strangely. In the bank, they had met someone who had called the police, who explained that A.N. had gone to the bank, had withdrawn all his money and while in tears had said “it will be talked about”. When M.L. and I.B. had reported on their findings to the on-duty commanding officer, they had been instructed to find A.N. at his home address. They had found him there and interviewed him. A.N. had not been drunk or aggressive. He had said that he was going to kill himself because of problems with his wife and son and that he would do it either that day or the next, and that nobody could stop him. He had appeared normal and calm. They had not searched him because there had been no grounds to take such action, nor had there been any reason to take him to hospital in accordance with the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act. M.L. also explained A.N. was known to him and that before seeing him, he had been informed by the on-duty commanding officer that he had already threatened to kill his wife. 57. In his statement I.B. confirmed M.L.’s version of events, explaining that the police could take an individual to hospital or a police station and have a doctor examine him, but they had not considered A.N. to be a danger so had not taken any such action. 58. Police officer M.T. stated that when officers M.L. and I.B. had returned from the bank they had said that A.N. had not been drunk or aggressive but merely agitated, and that he had threatened suicide. M.T. had then attempted to contact his superiors and had managed to get in touch with the deputy chief for the criminal police M.B., who had instructed him to inform the hospital and Social Care Centre. He had attempted to contact the hospital several times and at some point had managed to reach doctor I.F, who had said that he would try to find a place for A.N. in a psychiatric hospital. He had also asked where A.N. was, but at the time M.T. had not known. M.T. further explained that he had been familiar with the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act, which enabled the police to take a mentally disturbed individual to a psychiatric hospital, but he had considered the police to have done everything they could, although with hindsight, it would have been possible to do more, but the police could not have predicted what would happen. He had known that A.N. had a violent background but stressed that he had not been registered as insane. 59. At a hearing on 15 March 2006 the deputy chief for the criminal police M.B. gave his oral evidence. He explained that he had been informed that A.N. had gone to the bank where he had been behaving strangely. Later, he had been informed that the police had interviewed him and that he had appeared calm and normal but had threatened suicide. At around 8.05 to 8.10 a.m. M.B. had instructed the on-duty commanding officer, M.T., to inform the hospital and Social Care Centre. He considered the police to have done everything they could, but there had been no grounds to take any further measures given the findings of the police patrol that had interviewed A.N. at his home. He also explained that the usual practice in similar cases was to inform the hospital, who could call the police if they needed assistance. 60. A further hearing was held on 10 May 2006 at which police officers Ž.J. and T.S. and a customer from the bank, I.T., gave evidence. 61. Ž.J. stated that the day before the incidents M.N. had arrived at the police station followed by her husband A.N. Police officer Ž.J. had interviewed them but had found no grounds for the police to take further action, so he had told them to resolve their marital problems in their court proceedings. M.N. had also mentioned that after A.N. had been handed a suspended sentence, he had stopped making threats and beating her up. Ž.J. had not reported on the interview because his superior officer M.Kr. had not requested it. 62. Police officer T.S. had no specific knowledge about the incident. He had been off-duty at the time although he had, early in the morning, just before leaving the police station, sent a police patrol to the bank to check what had happened there and why A.N. had been behaving strangely. 63. The bank customer I.T. testified that he had seen A.N. in the bank on the morning in question, who had told him that he had been having some problems and that it would be talked about. He had been behaving strangely, as he had been walking around the bank in circles. He had looked nervous, and I.T. had thought that he had been ill and in need of medical attention. 64. On 15 September 2006 the trial court obtained a psychiatric report certifying that the first, second and third applicant and M.B.B.’s mother had all experienced mental suffering after the events. The report was confirmed by the expert at a hearing held on 21 February 2007. 65. On 5 March 2007 the Slatina Municipal Court allowed the civil action and ordered the State to pay damages for failing to protect the life of the applicants’ relative. The trial court held that the State’s responsibility under section 13 of the State Administration Act was objective, and that it was only necessary to establish whether the death had been a result of the unlawful or wrongful conduct of the State authorities. The relevant part of the judgment reads: “... It is not disputed between the parties that F.S. called the police a little after 7 a.m. F.S. informed the police of what had happened in the bank and about A.N.’s appearance. This court fully accepts the statements of F.S., M.S., D.F. and I.T. as credible when they testified about A.N.’s state of mind [in the bank]. They stated that A.N. had appeared totally unstable. The conclusion of the police officers M.L. and I.B. that A.N. had been normal and calm and had not been a danger cannot be accepted as logical. They reached such a conclusion after being informed by A.N. that he had withdrawn the money for [his] funeral, and that he was going to kill himself and nobody could stop him. Taking this into account, [this court considers that] the average person could have reached the conclusion about A.N.’s state of mind referred to by witnesses [F.]S., M.S., D.F. and I.T. The police officers who needed to act with particular diligence should have also reached [this] conclusion about A.N.’s state of mind, which they failed to do. They thus failed to act in accordance with sections 22 (1), 23§(1) and 24 of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act ... The defendant considers that there is no connection between the failures of the police and [M.B.B.’s death] and that there is therefore no liability on the Republic of Croatia. This court considers differently. Had police officer M.T. complied with the order of the deputy chief for the criminal police M.B., and informed the hospital and Social Care Centre at 8.15 a.m., as noted in the report, it is highly probable that the outcome would have been avoided, particularly taking into account the statement of witness I.F ... As the liability of the State is objective; it was for it to prove that the damage occurred as a result of a cause which could not have been avoided (vis major), or that the damage resulted exclusively from the actions of the aggrieved party or a third party which could not have been predicted and where the outcome could not have been avoided (section 177(1) and (2) of the Civil Obligations Act). Nothing of [the sort] has been proven by the defendant. ...” 66. The Slatina Municipal State Attorney’s Office, representing the State in the proceedings, lodged an appeal with the Virovitica County Court on 26 April 2007. 67. On 19 November 2007 the Virovitica County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered a retrial on the grounds that the first-instance court had erred in its findings that the liability of the State was objective as it was based on the existence of a fault, namely unlawfulness. That court further found that, irrespective of the fact that A.N. had threatened suicide, there had been nothing requiring police officers M.L. and I.B. to treat the case as particularly urgent and to take A.N. to a psychiatric hospital. It also accepted the police officers’ statements that A.N. had appeared calm during the interview. The Virovitica County Court instructed the first-instance court to question witnesses I.F. and M.T. again to establish what actions doctor I.F. had intended to take, since it was not clear whether he had intended to examine A.N. or just to see whether he could be placed in a psychiatric hospital, as could be inferred from the statement of police officer M.T. 68. In the resumed proceedings, at a hearing held on 27 February 2008, the Slatina Municipal Court heard doctor I.F. and police officer M.T. 69. Doctor I.F. testified that the usual practice in similar cases was to immediately respond at the scene and to examine the person if he or she was available. The medical response team consisted of a doctor, a driver and medical technician and a nurse. They first had to examine the person and then the doctor could decide whether hospitalisation in a psychiatric hospital was necessary. Police intervention was only sought if the person could not be apprehended for the examination. As regards the case at issue, doctor I.F. explained that he had been called by a police officer who had told him that A.N. had been behaving strangely and that he could do something bad. The police officer had not known where A.N. was. Had he known, he would have immediately responded at the scene and examined him. Doctor I.F. also explained that he had to first examine the person and only then he could make a prescription for that person’s admission to hospital. There had been no reason for him to check whether there had been a place in the hospital because it was for the hospital to decide what they wanted to do with his prescription and the person in question. In the present case, the information he had received from the police suggested that it had been necessary to examine A.N. at the scene. 70. Police officer M.T. stated that on the day in question he had informed doctor I.F. that the police had had a person who was seriously disturbed and who should be given an injection in order to calm down. As to his further conversations with the doctor, M.T. stated: “I cannot remember any more what doctor [I.]F. told me when I contacted him. I don’t remember exactly, but I think he told me that he would see whether [A.N] could be placed in the psychiatric hospital and then would ask for police intervention if he needed it. ... I would like to change my statement in the part where I said that doctor [I.]F. was going to first find a place in [the psychiatric hospital] and that he would then consult the police chief. Doctor F. actually told me that he would first examine [A.]N. and that he would call the police if necessary. ... In reply to the question from the defendant’s representative, I cannot explain why I changed my statement as regards what doctor [I.]F. had told me.” 71. On 7 March 2008 the Slatina Municipal Court obtained a police report describing the course of events later on the day of the shooting, and on 9 April 2008 concluded the trial. 72. On 22 April 2008 the Slatina Municipal Court dismissed the civil action as ill-founded, and ordered the applicants to pay HRK 80,700 in costs and expenses. The relevant part of the judgment reads: “... The liability of the defendant is based on the principle of fault (section 154(1) of the Civil Obligations Act). Unlawful conduct is conduct which is contrary to the law or an omission in the application of the law, which is committed deliberately or by accepting that it might cause damage to a third party. ... The purpose of section 13 of the State Administration Act is to provide for the liability of the State where there is a wilful act contrary to the law with the intent of causing damage ... Acceptance [of that outcome] is conduct or an omission of a State official in the performance of his or her official duties where he or she was able to, according to his or her individual capability, take into account the objective requirements with due diligence, and which he or she failed to do. In the particular circumstances, there is no causal link between the damage and the omissions of police officer M.Kr., in his capacity as on-duty commanding officer, to report the day before [the shootings] about M.N.’s complaint that she had been followed by A.N. This court finds nothing to suggest that the police officers who intervened at the bank, and who had had no knowledge of this, would have acted differently even if they had had such information. The plaintiffs also refer to the omissions of police officers M.L. and I.B ... Under section 24 of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act the police may, in particularly urgent cases, take a mentally disturbed individual to a psychiatric hospital without prior medical examination, provided there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual poses an immediate threat to his life or health, or the life or health of others ... The events [in the bank] suggest that the police had an obligation to act under section 23 of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act and to secure A.N.’s medical examination, after which the doctor could decide whether to take to a psychiatric hospital. But in the particular circumstances police officers M.L. and I.B. could not have been expected to recognise that there was any particular urgency or that A.N. should be taken to a psychiatric hospital without prior medical examination ... The omission of police officer [M.T.] to inform the hospital about A.N.’s behaviour is an irregularity in the performance of his official duties. However, the dispute between the parties is whether there is a causal link between this irregularity and the event ... Even if M.T. had informed the hospital at 8.15 a.m., it is doubtful whether the doctor would have carried out an examination because at that time he had not known where A.N. was. It follows that at the time A.N. was no longer available to the police and according to the evidence [submitted by] F.S. was in the bank sometime between 8.30 and 9 a.m. There is therefore no causal link between the incidents and the omissions of police officer M.T ... “ 73. The first, second and third applicants and K.B. lodged an appeal against the above judgment with the Virovitica County Court, arguing that the State authorities had failed to prevent the killing of their relative, and that in accordance with the relevant domestic law they should have been awarded damages. 74. On 7 May 2009 the Virovitica County Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. It held, however, that the first-instance court had erred in concluding that at 8.30 a.m. the police had not known A.N.’s whereabouts, because around that time the police had interviewed him at his home. In any event, the police could have informed the hospital immediately after 7.15 a.m. when they had received the call from the bank. Nevertheless, the court held that the police had done everything they could and that it could not be concluded that only intervention by the doctor in the first few hours after the information had been received from the bank would have prevented the incidents. The court also found that, irrespective of A.N.’s violent background and the indications that he was mentally disturbed, he had not acted violently on the day of the incidents or the day before. It was true that police officers M.L. and I.B. had omitted to examine A.N. under section 49 of the Police Act, but he had not been behaving violently, so that omission could not be characterised as an irregularity in their work. Moreover, it was not certain whether A.N. had a gun at the time and therefore it was in doubt whether such a police search could have prevented the incidents. 75. On 29 June 2009 the first, second and third applicants and K.B. lodged an appeal on points of law against the above judgment before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). 76. On 11 May 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law as ill-founded and upheld the Virovitica County Court’s judgment. It found that the lower courts had misinterpreted the relevant domestic law by holding that the liability of the State was based on the principle of fault because it was in fact based on the objective principle. It was thus sufficient to establish that there was unlawful or irregular conduct on the part of the State administration and the causal link to the damage thereby caused. In the case at issue, the Supreme Court held that there had been no causal link between the irregular work of the police officers and the killing of the applicants’ relative. 77. On 5 January 2012 the applicants (including the fourth and fifth applicants, who had taken over the proceedings from K.B. following her death on 14 June 2010) lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) challenging the decisions of the lower courts. 78. On 15 March 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint, endorsing the reasoning of the Supreme Court. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicants’ representative on 27 April 2012.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Stavropol Region. 6. On 22 March 2006, following an application by a police chief and without the applicant’s knowledge, a judge of the Georgievsk Town Court of Stavropol Region issued a decision authorising the taking of “operational-search measures”, which read in its entirety as follows: “[The court], having examined a decision by the chief of the Georgievsk district police station on the taking of operational-search measures, FOUND AS FOLLOWS: It follows from the decision and a memorandum that ... Samvel Avanesyan, residing at ... probably has in his household certain objects and items prohibited from free circulation and [which have also been] criminally acquired. With a view to finding and seizing them, it is necessary to take operational-search measures. On the basis of Article 25 of the Constitution and section 6(8) of the Operational-Search Activities Act, the court HOLDS: That the carrying-out of operational-search activities, that is, an inspection of the premises, buildings, constructions, vehicles and plots of land belonging to Samvel Avanesyan, residing at [the address], is authorised.” 7. On the same day two officers from the Georgievsk police station came to the applicant’s house at the Budennova Street and “inspected” (обследовали) the living quarters. 8. The applicant was away from home on that day. The police showed the authorisation to the applicant’s father. He had a heart attack and died before the ambulance arrived. 9. The “inspection record” (акт о результатах обследования) indicated that nothing had been found or seized. 10. On 29 March 2006 the applicant complained to the Georgievsk district prosecutor’s office, claiming that the police officers had carried out an unlawful search. On 10 April 2006 (or 8 May 2006, according to the Government) an investigator from the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding that the officers had acted lawfully and that the death of the applicant’s father had been a coincidence. According to the applicant, the existence of the judicial authorisation of 22 March 2006 was for the first time revealed in the investigator’s reply. 11. The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to lodge a supervisory-review application against the judicial authorisation of 22 March 2006. He submitted that, contrary to the requirements of the Operational-Search Activities Act, the decision had not mentioned specific grounds for carrying out the “inspection” of his home or spelled out the information on which the suspicion had been founded. He had had no criminal record, no criminal charge had been levelled against him, and he had not been heard as a victim or witness. Furthermore, the scope of the decision had been too vague and imprecise; it had not mentioned what specific items were to be uncovered. The applicant relied on Article 8 of the Convention and the inviolability of his home under the Constitution. 12. On 20 June and 20 October 2006 two judges of the Stavropol Regional Court returned the supervisory-review applications to the applicant. Their covering letters stated that judicial decisions issued in the framework of the Operational-Search Activities Act were not amenable to supervisory review. 13. The applicant also complained to the Constitutional Court, seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of section 5 of the Operational-Search Activities Act. On 18 September 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected his complaint, informing him as follows: “In its Decision no. 86-O dated 14 July 1998 concerning the compatibility of certain provisions of the Operational-Search Activities Act with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held that proceedings for judicial examination of the issue of whether an operational-search measure restricting the constitutional rights of an individual should be authorised, are not a trial hearing, not even a preliminary hearing: these proceedings are conducted ex parte. The individual concerned is not yet a party to the proceedings and need not be aware of the judicial authorisation. The proceedings are not transparent, public or adversarial; were it otherwise, the taking of covert operational-search measures would become impossible and operational-search activities pointless. Nevertheless, the absence of the individual concerned from the court session in which the authorisation of operational-search measures restricting the constitutional rights and freedoms is being decided upon does not dispense the court from the obligation to undertake a comprehensive examination of the grounds and conditions for such a measure. The judicial decision must be reasoned and it must refer to specific facts that confirm the indications of a serious or particularly serious crime or act that is being planned or executed or that has been committed. It follows from section 5 of the Operational-Search Activities Act that an individual who becomes aware that operational-search activities are being carried out against him on the basis of a judicial authorisation and who considers that his rights and lawful interests have been injured thereby may apply to a court for the protection of his rights in accordance with the established jurisdictional and procedural requirements. These findings by the Constitutional Court have been applicable to date. However, the Constitutional Court is not competent to verify the way in which the law-enforcement authorities interpreted and applied a specific legal act.”

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1936. 6. In the summer of 2005, the applicant was hired as a guard to accompany a shipment of some sixty tonnes of onions from Tajikistan to Siberia. After a nine-day journey by rail, the cargo arrived at Rubtsovsk station in the Altay Region. Using sniffer dogs, Russian customs officials found concealed rubber containers inside onion skins that held a total of more than seventy-three kilograms of heroin. 7. At about 9 p.m. on 1 August 2005 the applicant was taken to the organised crime department at the Rubtsovsk police station and placed in a room (no. 26) under police guard. A record of his arrest was not drawn up. The applicant spent the night on a mattress in the corridor. 8. At 8.50 a.m. on 2 August 2005 a criminal case was instituted in connection with the uncovered shipment of drugs. The investigator, L., accepted the case at about 11 a.m. and interviewed the applicant. He was searched, and a small package of heroin was found concealed in his bag. 9. Later that day a record of arrest was drawn up, and the applicant was formally remanded in custody on a charge of drug smuggling. According to the record, the applicant was arrested at 8.20 p.m. on 2 August 2005 at the Rubtsovsk police station. 10. During the applicant’s trial, his counsel repeatedly raised the issue of his unrecorded detention from 1 to 2 August 2005 and put questions to the police officers, who were heard as witnesses, about the events following the applicant’s apprehension. According to the hearing records, they replied as follows: 11. The chief of the drug control department, M., stated: “Rakhimberdiyev was taken to the department. While [there], he remained under guard. He stayed in the department for five hours. Pending [his placement in] the IVS (temporary detention cell), he was not allowed to go outside. During the twenty-four hour period of detention, Rakhimberdiyev did not go to the toilet, he did not ask to.” 12. The deputy chief of the organised crime department, Ch., stated: “Rakhimberdiyev could not get up and go out because we had to take a decision on the basis of the documents. I cannot say what the grounds for keeping him in the corridor were.” 13. An operative of the drug control department, Shl., testified: “Rakhimberdiyev could not go out because the door was locked, he was under guard.” 14. An officer of the special-purpose department of the criminal police, B., stated: “Rakhimberdiyev could not leave because I said so – the case was in progress, the expert was working. I do not know what the grounds for his detention were ... I stood guard over him so as to prevent him from going out ...” 15. On 9 March 2006 the Rubtsovsk Town Court found the applicant guilty of drug smuggling with intent to supply and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment in a high-security facility. 16. On 18 May 2006 the Altay Regional Court acquitted the applicant on the charge of smuggling, but upheld his conviction in the part concerning the possession of twenty-seven grams of heroin. The sentence was commuted to three years’ imprisonment. 17. In the meantime, counsel for the applicant complained to the Rubtsovsk town prosecutor about the applicant’s unrecorded detention from 1 to 2 August 2005. The prosecutor forwarded the complaint to the chief of the organised crime department for verification. 18. On 13 April 2006 the chief of the organised crime department approved the conclusions of an internal inquiry a senior operative had carried out into the allegation of unlawful detention. The inquirer took a statement from the chief of the drug control department, M., who claimed that the applicant had been released on the night of 1 August 2005 but had asked to stay at the police station overnight because he had had nowhere else to go. Further statements from officers Ch., Shl., B., Me., and Shn. corroborated M.’s claims. Without questioning the applicant, the inquirer concluded that the allegation of unlawful detention was unsubstantiated. 19. By a decision of 20 April 2006, an investigator from the Rubtsovsk town prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s complaint of unlawful detention. He referred to the statements of the police officers, who had claimed unanimously that the applicant had refused to leave because he had had nowhere else to go, and that they had allowed him to stay overnight in the corridor, where he had slept on a mattress. The investigator did not interview the applicant, but reached the conclusion that his complaint to the prosecutor was to be considered “a way of seeking to avoid liability for the particularly serious crime he had committed”. 20. Counsel for the applicant challenged the decision before a court. 21. On 12 May 2006 the Rubtsovsk Town Court held that the investigator’s decision had not been lawful or justified: “The descriptive part of the decision contradicts the findings of the investigation. Thus, [the investigator] established that on 1 August 2005 Rakhimberdiyev had been detained on suspicion of committing a crime and that his detention was only formalised on 2 August 2005 at 8.20 p.m. The investigator did not assess all the documents in the case file: the expert report dated 1 August 2005; the judgment of 9 March 2006, which established that on 1 August 2005 Rakhimberdiyev had been taken to the organised crime department at the Rubtsovsk police [station] and had remained there under continuous guard until his formal arrest at 8.20 p.m. on 2 August 2005 ... The decision does not refer to the crime scene inspection report, which indicated that the scene had been inspected at 5.45 p.m. on 1 August 2005. All the witnesses testified that Rakhimberdiyev had been taken to the police station immediately after the inspection of the crime scene and had stayed there of his own will, which is contradicted by the statement of the convict. The investigator merely reproduced the testimony of the police officers in his decision, without giving a legal assessment. The actions of the police officers, which were incompatible with Article 92 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were not justified.” 22. On 1 July 2006 another investigator from the Rubtsovsk town prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation, reproducing verbatim the text of the decision of 20 April 2006. On 21 July 2006 the town prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered an additional inquiry. 23. Further to a complaint by counsel, on 24 July 2006 the Town Court held that the town prosecutor had unduly delayed the inquiry into the applicant’s complaint. 24. On 2 August 2006 a senior investigator from the town prosecutor’s office again refused to open a criminal case. He found that it could not be shown to the required standard of proof that the applicant had stayed in the police station against his will. 25. On 10 August and 19 October 2006 respectively, the Rubtsovsk Town Court and Altay Regional Court summarily upheld the investigator’s decision.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

7. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. Her son, Mr Apti Zaynalov, was born in 1980. 8. In October 2005 Mr Apti Zaynalov was convicted of belonging to an illegal armed group. In July 2006 he was released from detention and after that date lived in Saratov, working in the construction industry. The applicant often stayed with him in Saratov. 9. On 25 June 2009 the applicant travelled back to Grozny from Saratov. Before her departure Mr Apti Zaynalov told her that he was going to study in Egypt and that he had to go to Moscow to finalise certain formalities. 10. On 26 June 2009 the applicant received a message from her son on her mobile phone saying that he would be flying to Egypt the next day. She did not hear from him again and had assumed that he was in Egypt. 11. The applicant alleged that her son had been abducted in June 2009 by unknown servicemen and had disappeared in July 2009. Below is a summary of her submissions to the Court and to the national authorities. 12. According to the applicant’s submissions of 15 July 2009, on 2 July 2009 an unknown person had contacted the offices of Memorial in Grozny, claiming that a young man called Apti, whose body exhibited signs of torture, had been placed under guard in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. Staff from Memorial decided to follow up this information, believing that the young man might be Mr Apti Sh., who was considered to be a missing person. 13. On 3 July 2009 Memorial staff member Mr G. had gone to Achkhoy-Martan together with Mr Apti Sh.’s uncle, Mr I. Sh. They had found a patient under guard in the hospital’s surgical department. Mr G. had peeped into the ward and had seen two armed guards wearing camouflage uniform and black caps bearing the letters “K.R.A.” in Cyrillic. Two more guards had been sitting on beds near the door. On a bed near the window there had been a young man who was being assisted by a nurse. He was about thirty years old, had bruises on his face, his head was bandaged, and he was covered by a sheet displaying red stains. Mr I. Sh. realised that the patient was not his nephew. A hospital nurse had allegedly told Mr G. that the patient was twenty-nine years old, that his name was Apti Zaynalov, and that he was from the village of Makhety. He had been brought from Grozny, the medical staff had not been allowed to talk to him, his file contained no personal information, and he had been registered as “unknown”. Judging from his wounds, he might have been subjected to ill-treatment. 14. Later that day Mr G. had contacted a relative of Mr Apti Zaynalov. That relative had showed Mr G. and Mr I. Sh. a photograph of Mr Apti Zaynalov and they had identified him as the patient. 15. On 3 July 2009 the applicant’s elder son, Mr R., had told her that he had received information from Memorial stating that there was a patient resembling Mr Apti Zaynalov under guard in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. 16. On 4 July 2009 the applicant and Mr R. had visited the Memorial office in Grozny. 17. On 5 July 2009 Mr G. and Mr R. had travelled to Achkhoy-Martan but had obtained no new information. 18. On 7 July 2009 the applicant and Memorial staff member Mrs Natalia Estemirova had been received by the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor Mr P. The latter had ordered two officers to go with them to Achkhoy-Martan Hospital in order to conduct an inspection there. Then he had left for a meeting. According to the applicant, the two officers had accompanied her and Mrs Estemirova to the Achkhoy-Martan District Department of the Interior (ROVD). The officers had entered the premises but the applicant and Mrs Estemirova had remained waiting outside. After about an hour the applicant and Mrs Estemirova had returned to the prosecutor’s office. However, they had not been admitted to the premises and had gone from there to the hospital. There they were met by Mr G., who explained to the applicant in which ward Mr Apti Zaynalov was allegedly being held. 19. The applicant had approached the surgical department alone and had seen men in camouflage uniforms at its entrance. She had gone to the maternity department since it offered a good view of the surgical department and, having guessed that the patient was likely to be taken out through the security exit, had stood within seven or eight metres of that exit. Within a few minutes a white Volga car with number 367 on the registration plate had approached the security exit and a couple of minutes later Mr Apti Zaynalov had been led out through the security exit. The applicant claims to have recognised him from his face, his height and his build. There had been stains of brilliant green antiseptic on his head and dark shadows around his eyes. He had been put into the back seat of the Volga car. The car had then approached the main hospital entrance, where two servicemen had got into the car. The Volga car had then driven off and – beyond the gates – had been joined by a black car with number 364 on the registration plate. The applicant had then returned to the surgical department and saw that the ward described by Mr G. was empty. 20. On 8-9 July 2009 the applicant lodged applications with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic, the Achkhoy-Martan Inter‑district Investigative Department and the Investigative Committee at the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic (“the Investigative Committee”) requesting that an investigation be instituted into her son’s disappearance. 21. To support her submissions the applicant enclosed her own statement, statements by Mrs Estemirova and Mr G., and copies of her applications to the State authorities. 22. According to the applicant’s submissions of 14 September 2009, she had learnt that on 28 June 2009 Mr Apti Zaynalov had arrived in Grozny by train. At the railway station he had taken a taxi driven by Mr Z. Kh. On the way, the taxi driver had stopped at a service station where he and Mr Apti Zaynalov had been apprehended by armed men and driven away. Shortly after Mr Z. Kh. had been apprehended, unidentified armed men had conducted an unauthorised search of his home. 23. On 7 July 2009 Mr S. Kh., Mr Z. Kh.’s father, had lodged an application with the Zavodskoy District ROVD concerning the disappearance of his son. Two deputy heads of the ROVD had allegedly confirmed that he had been detained by the police. 24. On 15 July 2009 Mrs Estemirova had been abducted by unknown persons in front of her house in Grozny. Her body had been found later the same day with gunshot wounds by the side of a road in Ingushetia. 25. On 16 July 2009 Mr Z. Kh. had been released. However, according to the applicant, he and his relatives had been so scared by what had happened to him that they had refused to make any witness statements in relation to the present case. 26. The following information was provided by the parties in reply to the Court’s requests for information and questions concerning the communication. 27. On 7 July 2009 the Achkhoy-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) had received an application lodged by the applicant which stated that her son had been ill-treated by unidentified persons and was being held under guard in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. The applicant stated, in particular, that on 3 July 2009 she had received a phone call from which she learned that her son was being kept under guard in the surgical department of that hospital with haematomas and head wounds. On the same date her application had been transferred to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD. 28. On 7 July 2009 the ROVD officers had been given explanations by Mr Ts., the deputy director of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. He had submitted that on 3 July 2009 he had been on duty at the hospital and Mr Apti Zaynalov had not been admitted. It was the first time he had heard this name and it had not been listed in the patients’ register. Furthermore, no patient had been admitted at the hospital under guard. 29. On 9 July 2009 Mr H., the head of the surgical department, had made a similar statement. 30. On the same date Mr D., deputy prosecutor of the Achkhoy-Martan district, had submitted a written statement to the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic. He stated that at approximately 2 p.m. on 7 July 2009 he had received the applicant’s application alleging that her son was under guard in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital with haematomas and wounds. He had forwarded the application to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD in order that an inspection be conducted. The inspection of the hospital had been carried out by Mr A., the prosecutor’s senior assistant, and M., the head of the criminal investigations department of the ROVD, who had checked all the hospital wards, inspected the hospital register and questioned the medical staff in order to establish Mr Apti Zaynalov’s whereabouts. However, the allegations of his placement in the surgical department of the hospital had not been confirmed. 31. In a written statement of the same date Mr A., the prosecutor’s senior assistant, had confirmed Mr D.’s statement. 32. On 10 July 2009 the Investigative Committee had received the applicant’s application concerning the disappearance of her son, who had allegedly been taken from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital to an unknown destination. 33. On 10 July 2009 the principal physician of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital had been asked to provide information about Mr Apti Zaynalov’s placement in the hospital. According to the reply received, Mr Apti Zaynalov had never been admitted to the hospital. 34. On 14 July 2009 Ms M., a nurse at Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, had submitted her explanations. On 7 July 2009 she had been on duty at the hospital. Mr Apti Zaynalov had not been admitted to the hospital during her duty hours and there had been no patient under guard in the hospital. Ms I., the chief nurse, had made a similar statement. 35. On 15 July 2009, having taken account of the results of the inspection conducted, the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD had decided to refuse to institute criminal proceedings. The applicant had been informed of the decision. 36. According to the Government, the applicant had not provided the investigating authorities with any information about the alleged detention of the taxi driver Mr Z. Kh. The authorities had decided to check the version involving the latter after coming across an article by Mrs Estemirova, published on the Internet, which had linked the disappearance of Mr Z. Kh. to that of Mr Apti Zaynalov. The Government enclosed a copy of the article. 37. On 17 July 2009 Mr S. Kh., Mr Z. Kh.’s father, was asked to make a statement. He explained that his son was a driver and had a Toyota Camry provided by his employer as well as his own car, a GAZ-3102. On Sunday, 28 June 2009, at approximately 9 a.m. Mr Z. Kh. had taken the GAZ-3102 to the service station for repair. At approximately 11 a.m. the same day Mr S. Kh. had called his son on his mobile phone but there was no reply. Later the phone had been switched off. At approximately 4.30 p.m. Mr S. Kh. had gone outside and had seen three cars near Mr Z. Kh.’s house: a silver Lada Priora and two white VAZ-2107s. In the yard of the house there had been about ten armed men, aged between twenty-five and thirty years old, wearing camouflage uniform. They had not been wearing masks and had appeared to be of Chechen ethnic origin. At the time there had been no one in Mr Z. Kh.’s house because his wife and children had gone to visit relatives. When Mr S. Kh. approached the armed men, they had not offered any explanation and had forbidden him to come closer to his son’s house, threatening him with automatic weapons. Mr S. Kh. had called the local ROVD and informed them of the situation. About thirty minutes later the armed men had left, taking Mr Z. Kh.’s Toyota Camry with them. Five or ten minutes later a man who had introduced himself as B. had called Mr S. Kh.’s other son, Mr Sh., and had told him to come to a certain junction to fetch his brother’s car. Ten or fifteen minutes later an investigation team from the ROVD had arrived. They had gone to the junction along with Mr Sh. and had found Mr Z. Kh.’s car there. On the evening of the same day the head of the ROVD had visited Mr S. Kh., and had informed him about the disappearance of Mr Z. Kh. On the date of questioning, Mr Z. Kh. had still been missing. 38. On the same date Mr S. Kh. had informed the investigating authorities that his son, Mr Z. Kh., had just returned home safely. 39. Later that day Mr Z. Kh. had been questioned. He had explained that on 28 June 2009 at approximately 9 a.m. he had gone out in his GAZ-3102 car and, having told his relatives that he was going to a service station, decided instead to go to the Black Sea resort of Gelendzhik for a couple of days, since his wife and children were away. He had been unable to call home because his phone had been lost. In Gelendzhik Mr Z. Kh. spent a few days living with a girl in a tent on the beach. In reply to the investigator’s question why he had not called his family, Mr Z. Kh. replied that while in Gelendzhik he had been drinking a lot and it had slipped his mind. Having returned home, he discovered that his relatives had been worried about him and had informed the authorities about his disappearance. Mr Z. Kh. had confirmed that he had not been a victim of any criminal offence. The fact that his Toyota Camry had been taken from his house and later found in a specified place surprised him. He had no idea who could have done it or for what reason. 40. On 24 July 2009 Mr S. Kh. was questioned again. He confirmed his son’s statements and confirmed that nothing bad had happened to Mr Z. Kh. 41. Following the institution of criminal proceedings into Mr Apti Zaynalov’s disappearance (see below), Mr S. Kh. had been questioned as a witness on 23 September and 15 December 2009. He had confirmed his previous statements and had informed the investigator that on 2 August 2009 his son, Mr Z. Kh., had left for an unspecified European country. Mr S. Kh. said that he had preferred it this way as he had been worried for the latter’s safety. Later his other son, Mr Sh., had also left the Chechen Republic. He had also stated that he had not known of Mr Z. Kh.’s acquaintance with Mr Apti Zaynalov, and his son had never mentioned the latter’s name. 42. On 20 July 2009 the ROVD’s refusal to institute a criminal investigation of 15 July 2009 was quashed. The applicant was informed accordingly. 43. Between 20 and 28 July 2009 requests for information about Mr Apti Zaynalov were sent to various law-enforcement and security services in Chechnya, including the Ministry of the Interior, the Department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB), the Temporary United Alignment of Agencies and Units of the Ministry of the Interior [ОГ ВОГО и П МВД – временная объединенная группировка органов и подразделений МВД] and the Investigative Committee. 44. On 27 and 28 July 2009 the applicant was questioned. She reaffirmed her previous submissions. The applicant stated, inter alia, that in Saratov on 23 June 2009 her son had told her that he was going to Moscow and then to Egypt. He had had no intention of coming to Chechnya. She also submitted that she had learned from Mrs Estemirova that Mr Apti Zaynalov had been taken from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital to a hospital in Gudermes, where he had also been placed under guard. She was later questioned again, and reaffirmed her previous submissions. (b) Opening of the investigation 45. On 28 July 2009 criminal investigation no. 74032 was instituted into the disappearance of Mr Apti Zaynalov. The applicant was informed of the decision. On the same date the acting prosecutor of Achkhoy-Martan transferred the case file from the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD to the Investigative Committee for further investigation. 46. On 3 August 2009 the case was transferred to department no. 2 of the Chechnya Department of the Investigative Committee investigating cases of high importance. (c) Information obtained from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital 47. On 30 July 2009 Mr G. from Memorial was questioned. He confirmed that, to his knowledge, the applicant’s son had been detained in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. 48. Twenty-one doctors and nurses from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital were questioned between 13 and 31 August 2009. Among those questioned were the director of the hospital, his deputy, the head of the surgical ward, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and operational and post-operational nurses. Their submissions were largely concordant and confirmed that an unknown young man had been treated on the surgical ward between 28 June and 7 July 2009, whilst under the guard of unknown armed men. The personnel had not asked the patient’s name, and in his medical file he had been recorded as “unknown”. No information about his admittance had been entered in the hospital’s records. The provenance of the guards had also been unknown, and no one remembered any insignia or marks on their uniforms, except the hospital director who believed that it had been the insignia of the Ministry of the Interior; no one had seen or noted their service badges or IDs or the registration plates of the cars they had used; no one had informed the law-enforcement authorities about a patient with gunshot wounds and trauma to the head. The guards had been armed with automatic weapons, had been of Chechen origin and had spoken in Chechen to the staff of the hospital and to the patient. They had treated the patient correctly and had done most of the everyday care, such as changing, washing and feeding the patient; the doctors and nurses had not spoken to him, had had very little contact with him and, if at all, it had always been in the presence of the guards. Some doctors and nurses were asked if they would be able to describe or identify the guards, or to identify or sketch the patient, but they responded in the negative. The medical file opened for the unknown patient at the hospital disappeared after his departure, as did the bullet extracted from his wound. 49. The hospital director Mr Rizvan Kh. testified on 14 August 2009 that on 28 June 2009 at about 2 p.m. a group of five or six men had arrived to the hospital in two grey VAZ-21110 cars. The men had been dressed in camouflage uniforms bearing the Ministry of the Interior insignia and were armed with Kalashnikov automatic rifles and hand pistols. They had said that they worked for the ROVD, and Mr Rizvan Kh. assumed that they meant the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD. The men had brought in a wounded man, aged around 29, about 170 cm tall, dark-skinned, dark haired. He had a gunshot wound to the right leg, a piercing wound to the abdomen and a head trauma. His wounds had been operated on, and a neurosurgical team from Grozny had been called in to treat his head trauma. The armed guards had forbidden the hospital personnel, including the director, to talk to the patient. The hospital director had presumed that the patient was employed by the security services, perhaps by the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD, since at that time a number of servicemen were being treated at the hospital. For this reason, he had not passed on information about the patient to the police. At about 4 p.m. on 7 July 2009 the guards had removed the patient from the hospital without any warning. At that time the patient had been on the path to recovery, but was not completely healed. 50. On 5 February 2010 the applicant’s counsel lodged an application with the investigating authorities requesting that criminal proceedings be instituted against the staff of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital on the grounds of their failure to inform the relevant authorities that a patient with gunshot wounds had been admitted. On 8 February 2010 this request was refused. (d) Information about the detention of two men at the service station 51. On 24 August 2009 Mr M. was questioned. He worked at a service station in Grozny. On 28 June 2009 at approximately 11 a.m. a white GAZ‑3102 car bearing the registration plates of Mr Z. Kh.’s car had entered the station. Soon afterwards a man wearing a black uniform and armed with a Kalashnikov submachine gun had entered the service station. He had aimed the gun at them and told Mr M. to lie on the floor. He had then taken the driver outside and made him lie down on the ground. Mr M. could hear screaming in Chechen outside and from the talking of approximately six armed men he had grasped that they were tying down a guy who was resisting them. The man in the black uniform had returned and asked for a piece of wire. Mr M. had understood that the men had used it to tie the hands of the passenger in the GAZ-3102 car. At some point he had heard two shots. The men then left in two white Lada Priora cars, taking with them both the passenger and the driver. Later, officers from the checkpoint near the service station had removed the GAZ-3102 car. Later that day and the following day, law-enforcement officers, including investigators, had come to the station and questioned Mr M. about those events. Mr M. would not have been able to identify the passenger, having noted only that he must have been twenty-eight to thirty years old. However, he would probably have been able to identify the driver, whom he described in detail. He might also have been able to identify the man in black uniform. At the end of July 2009, a man had come to the service station and had introduced himself as the brother of the driver apprehended on 28 June 2009. He had said that his brother had been released. (e) Internal inquiry into the actions of the Achkhoy-Martan prosecutor 52. On 24 September 2009 the Deputy Prosecutor of Chechnya concluded an internal inquiry into the actions of the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor Mr P. and his deputy Mr D. 53. The document summarised the findings as follows: “On 7 July 2009 [the applicant] and Memorial representative Mrs Estemirova personally informed the acting Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor, Mr P., that on 26 June 2009 [the applicant’s] son, Mr Apti Zaynalov, had been kidnapped in Saratov and that at the time in question he was being held on the surgical ward of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital with numerous wounds and head traumas, guarded by unidentified armed persons. On the same day Mr P. recorded the application and gave it to his deputy Mr D. for transfer to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD. On 7 July 2009 the deputy district prosecutor Mr D. forwarded [the applicant’s] application to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD for the conduct of a preliminary inquiry, in line with Sections 144 and 145 of the [Code of Criminal Procedure]. On 7 July 2009 Mr Apti Zaynalov was abducted from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital by unidentified armed men and taken to an unknown destination. On 27 July 2009, further to [the applicant’s] submissions, criminal investigation file no. 74032 was opened by an investigator of the Achkhoy-Martan [department of the Investigative Committee] under Section 105 part 1 [murder] of the [Criminal Code]. On 2 August 2009 the criminal file was transferred for further investigation to department no. 2 of the [Chechnya Department of the Investigative Committee] investigating cases of high importance. The measures undertaken by the investigation department have not resulted in the ascertainment of Mr Apti Zaynalov’s whereabouts or the identification of the persons who committed the crime. From [the applicant’s] explanations it follows that on 7 July 2009 she and Mrs Estemirova from Memorial informed the acting Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor, Mr P., that on 26 June 2009 her son had been kidnapped in Saratov and was being held on the surgical ward of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital... In their presence Mr P. instructed his deputy Mr D. and a senior assistant Mr A. to go to the hospital together with [the applicant] ... and find out what was happening there. At about 2 p.m. Mr D. and Mr A. walked into the ROVD building, having asked the two women to wait outside. After waiting for over one hour, she and Mrs Estemirova decided to enter the building but were not allowed to. They then went to the Achkhoy‑Martan district prosecutor’s office ..., but the guards refused to let them enter, saying that there was no one inside. At about 4 p.m. they finally went to Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, where the applicant saw four armed men putting her son into a car. There were no officers from the prosecutor’s office at the hospital. Mr P., the acting Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor, explained that on 26 June 2009 he had received information from Mr S., the head of the Achkhoy-Martan district [department of the FSB], that an active member of the [illegal armed groups] was being treated at Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, guarded by a group of unknown armed persons. In order to check up on this information, Mr P, his deputy Mr D. and deputy head of the Achkhoy-Martan district [investigative committee] went to Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. There, guarded by two unidentified men dressed in camouflage uniforms, they found a young man aged between 28 and 32 years, between 180 and 185 cm tall, with his head covered in bandages. The guards prevented the prosecutor from entering the room to ascertain the patient’s identity and, brandishing guns, they threatened to kill him. The director of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, Mr Kh., explained that the patient was being treated by a doctor from another hospital, but refused to make written submissions. These events were not reported by the prosecutors because they believed that the young man was a witness in a criminal case under investigation in the Oktyabrskiy ROVD, and that his anonymity should be preserved in line with the requirements of the criminal procedure because he had disclosed information about the members of the [illegal armed groups]. On 7 July 2009, having accepted [the applicant’s] complaint concerning the presence of her seriously wounded son under the guard of unknown armed persons at Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, Mr P. registered it ... but did not realise that Mr Apti Zaynalov was the person he had seen at the hospital two weeks earlier. He ordered his deputy Mr D. to send the complaint to the ROVD and to go to the hospital in order to find out whether Mr Apti Zaynalov was there. On the evening of 7 July 2009 Mr D. orally informed the prosecutor that Mr Apti Zaynalov was not at the hospital. Deputy district prosecutor Mr D. explained that ... on 7 July 2009 he had gone to Achkhoy-Martan Hospital together with senior assistant Mr A., the head of the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD, Mr Ay., and the head of the [operative criminal department] of the ROVD, Mr M. They examined the register of persons with traumas who had been admitted to the hospital and did not find Mr Apti Zaynalov’s name there. In breach of p. 1.1 of the General Prosecutor’s Directive of 4 October 2007 No. 158 “On the submission of special dispatches and other indispensable information”, the acting Achkhoy-Martan prosecutor, Mr P., failed to inform the [Chechnya] prosecutor about the threat of murder made to him on 26 June 2009 while he was on duty, which constituted a crime against his person. In breach of the requirements set by the General Prosecutor’s Directive of 27 December 2007 No. 212 “On recording and tracking by the prosecutors of information about crimes”, the acting prosecutor of Achkhoy-Martan, Mr P., having on 7 July 2009 received information about a crime, failed to take steps in order to protect citizens against a criminal act and to immediately inform the relevant investigation body. In breach of Section 151 of the [Code of Criminal Procedure], having been given information about kidnapping and the unlawful deprivation of liberty – crimes under Sections 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code – [Mr P.] did not submit that information to the Achkhoy-Martan [district department of the Investigative Committee] but instead, without any reason, instructed Mr D. to forward it to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD. Improper handling by Mr P. of [the applicant’s] petition facilitated the kidnapping by criminals of Mr Apti Zaynalov from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, following which his fate remains unknown and a serious crime remains unresolved.” 54. The document concluded that disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against Mr P. for the improper execution of his duties, while his deputy Mr D. should be reprimanded. 55. On 27 April 2010 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the applicant’s counsel in reply to an earlier request, that in the course of a disciplinary investigation it had been established that Mr P., the former acting prosecutor of Achkhoy-Martan, had failed to fulfil his duties when examining the applicant’s application concerning her son’s disappearance. In this connection disciplinary sanctions had been imposed on him. (f) Witness statements by the applicant 56. On 7 October 2009 the applicant was questioned as a victim. To her submissions she added that, after having heard from Mr G. that her son had been detained in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, she had verified the information “through her own source”, unrelated to Memorial. The applicant also stated that she had not known anything about her son’s acquaintance with Mr Z. Kh. She also asked that no further investigative activities at Achkhoy‑Martan Hospital be conducted involving her participation since, given her state of health, she could not endure the recollection of those traumatic events. 57. On 19 and 20 February 2010 the applicant was again questioned. She submitted that on 17 February 2009 her daughter had shown her a photo of Mr Apti Zaynalov that she had printed off from an Internet page together with the accompanying text. The text alleged that officers of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic had apprehended a resident of Ingushetia aged twenty-nine years who had confessed to being a member of an illegal armed group in the Achkhoy-Martan District. Later the applicant had learned from her representatives that the photograph had been changed. The new photograph showed a man standing against the wall with his back towards the camera. The applicant provided the investigating authorities with both print-outs. The investigator then showed her a short video of a man walking out of a cell and subsequently standing facing a wall and asked her whether it was her son. The applicant stated she was positive that it was not her son. 58. On 14 October 2009 the applicant sent a letter to the investigating authorities reiterating her request that they should not conduct any investigative activities requiring her participation due to the emotional impact on her. She stated at the same time that she was not refusing to cooperate with the investigation and had no grievances regarding its conduct. (g) Various intermediary procedural decisions 59. On 1 April 2010 the Investigative Committee suspended the investigation. It was stated in the decision that between 28 June and 7 July 2009 Mr Apti Zaynalov had been anonymously treated in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital under the guard of armed men. The latter, having learned that Mr Apti Zaynalov’s and Memorial’s staff had lodged applications with the law-enforcement agencies, had taken him from the hospital to an unknown destination. Mr Apti Zaynalov’s whereabouts had not been ascertained. 60. On 21 April 2010 the applicant asked a leave to study the case file and lodged a complaint against the decision of 1 April 2010 with a higher prosecuting official. 61. On the same date the applicant’s counsel lodged a complaint against the refusal of 8 February 2010 to institute criminal proceedings against the staff of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. 62. On 26 April 2010 the Investigative Committee dismissed this complaint. The decision stated, in particular: “...In the course of the investigation it has been established that on 28 June 2009 Mr Apti Zaynalov was abducted by unidentified persons in an unestablished place and then taken with shotgun wounds to Achkhoy-Martan ... Hospital where he underwent treatment for ten days and was then taken away by unidentified armed persons wearing camouflage uniform. So far his whereabouts have not been established. In breach of [an applicable] instruction, the medical staff of [Achkhoy-Martan Hospital] did not inform the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD about the admittance of Mr Apti Zaynalov. [...] In the course of the investigation ... all the staff of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital were questioned. [They] explained that they believed the armed men who were guarding the unidentified patient with gunshot wounds to be policemen, and for this reason had not informed the ROVD of the patient’s admittance. [...] Furthermore, during Mr Apti Zaynalov’s stay at Achkhoy-Martan Hospital the former acting prosecutor of Achkhoy-Martan, Mr P., visited [the hospital] to conduct an investigation. [He] met the former director of the hospital ... and established the fact that Mr Apti Zaynalov was in the hospital under armed guard, but took no further steps to investigate the situation properly. [...] In the circumstances, the failure of the medical staff to inform ... the ROVD of ... Mr Apti Zaynalov’s admittance does not call for an additional investigation since all relevant materials are available in the case file. [...]” 63. On 28 April 2010 the investigation was resumed. 64. In January 2010 the applicant’s counsel appealed to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny against the refusal of the investigating authorities to conduct certain investigative activities. 65. On 29 January 2010 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court granted the appeal and declared the refusal unlawful.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kaposvár. 6. The applicant suffers from a so-called psycho-social disability. On 3 October 2006 the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 concerning his psychiatric detention (see Gajcsi v. Hungary, no. 34503/03). 7. On 12 January 2000 the Fonyód District Court placed the applicant under partial guardianship. As an automatic consequence flowing from Article 70(5) of the Constitution, as in force at the relevant time, his name was deleted from the electoral register. 8. On 8 July 2008 the Kaposvár District Court reviewed the applicant’s situation and restored his legal capacity in all areas but health care matters. This change, however, did not restore his electoral rights. 9. The applicant could not vote in the general elections held in Hungary on 11 April 2010, due to the restriction on his legal capacity which resulted in the deprivation of his electoral rights.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. 6. In August 2001, the applicant started going to the dental practice of Dr A.D. in order to have dental bridges fitted. The treatment involved work on about twenty teeth, fitting bridges and crowns and adapting the adjacent teeth. 7. The treatment started in September 2001. When the first part of the bridgework was ready, the applicant noticed that it did not fit well. The dentist told her that she could still use it in order to eat and that he would rectify the problem. When the rest of the bridgework was ready, she again noticed that she could not close her mouth and that when she tried to eat it caused her great pain. The bridges were fitted provisionally and it was agreed that they would be permanently fixed at a later stage after being further adapted. Nevertheless, while wearing them she realised that her gums were affected. During the following days, she went to the dental surgery several times in order to have the bridges adapted, but the dentist told her that they were perfect and that all that remained was for them to be fixed permanently, even though she showed him that she could not close her mouth and that her gums were bleeding. 8. The applicant alleged that she had attempted to make a new appointment with Dr A.D. on several occasions prior to the end of January 2002, but to no avail. During this period, her state of health worsened and she had no money to pay for further dental treatment. 9. On 30 January 2002 the dentist issued her with a certificate of guarantee for the dental work that he had carried out and he kept the bridges with a view to adapting them. The applicant only received them back one and a half months later, without any change having been made to them. 10. She insisted that she could not use the bridgework, she could not eat while wearing it and that it hurt her gums and caused them to become infected. 11. In a complaint of 18 July 2002 addressed to the Ministry of Health, the applicant asked to undergo a medical expert examination in order to determine whether the bridgework was functional, to what extent it affected her teeth and how long she could wear bridges which were only fitted provisionally without this affecting her teeth and gums or causing irreversible speech problems. 12. On 6 August 2002 she was informed that her complaint would be reviewed by the Bucharest College of Doctors. 13. At the end of September 2002, she had a consultation with another dentist, Dr A.B. According to the applicant, she was told that the bridgework had not been correctly done and, given all the problems that it had caused her (infected gums, cuts, pain), it was not recommended that the bridges be fixed permanently. 14. A few days later, she was asked to undergo an examination by a panel of experts attached to the Faculty of Dentistry. 15. The second examination took place on 8 October 2002. She submitted that she had been told that there had been no need to perform an overly detailed examination, as it could be easily seen that the bridges should not be worn. 16. In a letter of 14 January 2003 addressed to the Bucharest College of Doctors, she asked to be informed of the findings in the medical expert report. On the same date, the Bucharest College of Doctors replied that the findings of the medical examination that they had carried out were only for the internal use of the Disciplinary Panel of the College of Doctors. If she wished to obtain an expert report, she had to request one from the National Institute of Forensic Medicine (hereafter, “the Institute”). 17. She contacted the Institute, but was informed that a medical expert report could only be requested in the context of judicial proceedings. 18. On 10 March 2003 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint, asking that a detailed medical expert report be ordered to determine whether there had been medical negligence. In the same complaint, she sought the reimbursement of the cost of the remaining dental treatment, which had not been returned to her, as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the suffering and health problems that the treatment in question had caused her. Her complaint was registered with the competent police department on 9 May 2003. 19. In a letter of 11 August 2003, the police department asked the Institute to draw up a medical expert report in order to determine whether the dental work performed by Dr A.D. had caused injuries which required medical treatment. 20. The Institute, having received a request by the applicant for the examination not to be conducted by the University of Bucharest, where Dr A.D. had studied, asked the Iași Dental Hospital to examine the applicant. 21. The Iași Dental Hospital issued its report on 4 September 2003, after having examined the applicant. The applicant took the report and handed it over to the Institute, which issued a forensic expert report on 4 December 2003. Its findings were as follows: “ after having examined S.B. and reviewing the medical papers, it appears that in September 2001 she underwent treatment to fit a variety of bridges and crowns, which proved to have been carried out incorrectly and inadequately. The attempt to wear the bridges and the subsequent absence of them led to complications and functional disorders (dental abrasion, chronic marginal periodontitis) [made] very widespread and severe by the dental bridgework, which is currently not correctly adapted to the cervical and axial margins [of the interproximal surfaces]. ... We underline that her current state is not completely the fault of the doctor who performed the work, but is also a result of the lack of dental treatment in the period September 2001 to August 2003, a period of time during which the functional disorders [outlined above were] aggravated because the bridges were not correctly adapted to the cervical and axial margins [of the interproximal surfaces]. In order to redo the treatment and put in place correct bridges, it is estimated that S.B. would have to undergo around thirty to thirty-five days of medical treatment.....” 22. The applicant tried to obtain a copy of that report, but she was told that she could only obtain one once the case had been referred to a court. In the end, she obtained a copy from the investigating officer on 12 October 2004. 23. The applicant contested the findings of this medical expert report, submitting that it had played down the negative findings of the report issued by the Iași Dental Hospital following that hospital’s examination of her. She also complained that there was no opportunity to have the conclusions reviewed by a medical review board. 24. On 23 September 2004 the prosecutor attached to the Bucharest District Court opened a criminal investigation against Dr A.D. on charges of causing bodily harm, for which criminal liability was established by Article 181 of the Criminal Code, as in force at the material time. 25. On 29 January 2005 the same prosecutor put an end to the criminal investigation, reasoning that the applicant’s failure to go to A.D.’s dental surgery in order to have the bridges permanently fixed had led to the deterioration of her state of health. 26. That decision was communicated to the applicant on 8 May 2008. 27. The applicant lodged a complaint against the decision. The complaint was allowed by a prosecutor’s decision of 23 May 2008. The prosecutor held that the case had been investigated on the basis of a crime punishable under Article 184 of the Criminal Code (causing unintentional bodily harm), whereas the decision to terminate the proceedings had concerned a crime punishable under Article 181 of the Criminal Code (causing bodily harm). 28. The case was referred back to the prosecutor. 29. By a decision of 27 May 2008, the prosecutor terminated the criminal investigation against Dr A.D. on the basis that the applicant had failed to lodge a criminal complaint against him within the two‑month time‑limit set by the Criminal Code. A criminal action for unintentional bodily harm could only be started on the basis of a preliminary complaint by the victim, which had to be lodged within two months from the date on which the victim had become aware of who the perpetrator was. As the applicant had known who had carried out the dental treatment since August/September 2001 but had only lodged her complaint with the prosecutor on 9 May 2003, it followed that her complaint was out of time. This decision was upheld by the supervising prosecutor on 20 August 2008. 30. The applicant’s application for judicial review of those decisions was dismissed by the Bucharest District Court on 21 November 2008. 31. Her subsequent appeal was allowed by the Bucharest County Court in a final decision of 3 February 2009, by which it was established that the prosecutor and the district court had wrongly assessed the evidence. The County Court noted that the criminal investigation had not been completed within a reasonable time. It was further established that the evidence in the case file had been sufficient to support the allegation that Dr A.D. had committed an act punishable by Article 184 §§ 2 and 4 of the Criminal Code, a crime in respect of which a criminal investigation could be automatically started by a public prosecutor. The County Court drew attention to the findings of the medical expert report in respect of the complications caused by the bridgework. It therefore considered that these complications (the destruction of bone supporting the teeth) amounted to a permanent physical disability. 32. The County Court remitted the case to the Bucharest Sector 1 District Court, instructing that court to consider the case in the light of the crimes punishable under Article 184 §§ 2 and 4 of the Criminal Code. 33. The district court ordered a new expert report from the Institute. The report could not be produced mainly because all the medical documentation from Dr A.D.’s consulting room, consisting of medical records, x‑rays, dental prints, and so forth, could not be found. The applicant refused to undergo a new medical examination on the ground that the new report should have been based not only on her examination in 2010 but also on the documents existent in her medical file. 34. In its judgment of 8 March 2011 the District Court found, on the one hand, that the applicable statute of limitation had expired. On the other hand, examining the merits of the case it acquitted the defendant on the basis of the expert report of 2003, finding that “the subsequent behaviour of the injured party, who chose to ignore the medical advice of the defendant, refused the completion of the treatment, in particular the permanent fixing of the dental prosthetics, only wore the prosthetics when eating, as she had personally testified before the court, [and failed to maintain] proper oral hygiene, [as] underlined by the expert report, ... led to complications, [which] cannot be blamed on the defendant but on the injured party herself.” 35. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Bucharest Court of Appeal. She sought a requalification of the charges from Article 184 (causing unintentional bodily harm) to Article 182 (causing intentional bodily harm) of the Criminal Code. 36. By a decision of 4 October 2011 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It held, inter alia, that the additional evidence requested by the applicant such as the contract, order and invoice for the manufacture of the bridges, as well as dental x‑rays, was irrelevant. Furthermore, it held that no causal link could be established between the treatment and the injuries sustained by the applicant, which were attributable exclusively to her conduct, that is, ignoring medical advice.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant lives in Budapest. 7. On 1 July 2002 the applicant concluded an employment contract with a State-owned specialised financial institution. 8. On 27 July 2003 the Hungarian Government adopted Government Decree no. 2173/2003. (VII. 29.) on the remuneration of senior professionals within business entities under majority State control. The applicant’s employment contract was amended in accordance with the Decree and stipulated, in case of ordinary dismissal, severance payment equal to two months’ salary and remuneration corresponding to a notice period of eight months. 9. On 30 June 2010 the applicant’s employment was terminated by mutual agreement. Under this agreement, on 5 July 2010 the applicant’s former employer paid the applicant, after taxes, a net amount of 13,879,643 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 46,300 euros (EUR)), amounting to eight months’ salary. 10. Under new legislation (see paragraph 11 below) the gross amount corresponding to the above payment was subsequently taxed at a 98% rate in its part exceeding HUF 3.5 million; the income tax and social security contributions already paid (see paragraph 9 above) were deducted from the tax payable. Thus, the applicant had to pay an additional HUF 11,296,051 as special tax, until 20 May 2011.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest. 7. On 18 May 2009 the applicant, a left-wing politician, participated in a peaceful demonstration wearing a five-pointed red star on his jacket. A police patrol which was present called on the applicant to remove the star, which was then confiscated. The applicant’s complaint to the Head of National Police was to no avail. 8. Subsequently, he challenged the measure in court. 9. On 29 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his action. The court held that the display of the red star contravened section 269/B of the Criminal Code and consequently its confiscation was justified under sections 115(1) and 151(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. In review proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision on 8 June 2011, holding that the police measure had been lawful, despite the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Vajnai v. Hungary (no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008), whose application in the circumstances had been no task of the police officers present on the premises. 11. The applicant incurred altogether 1,115 euros in legal costs.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Van. 6. According to the incident and the crime scene investigation reports, upon receipt of intelligence that terrorists were hiding in the area, on 24 June 2008 a large group of gendarme officers from the Hakkari Mountain Commando Brigade blocked the road near the village of Armutdüzü in the Yüksekova district. At about 1.30 a.m. the gendarme officers stopped a lorry on suspicion of fuel smuggling. Subsequently, another lorry approached the gendarme officers. The applicant was travelling in this vehicle and it was being driven by his cousin, N.A. The soldiers ordered them to stop, but N.A. continued to drive. According to the report drafted by the gendarme officers, the driver attempted to escape and the gendarme officers fired a warning shot in the air and then fired at the tyres of the lorry to stop it. According to the applicant, they were driving down a steep hill at high speed, and as the brakes had failed, they could not stop. They maintained that they had shouted from the window that the brakes were not working and N.A. had tried to avoid hitting the other lorry, which was parked in the middle of the street, by trying to pass it on the right. He then headed towards the hills, where there was a group of gendarme officers. The gendarme officers opened fire, first in the air and then at the vehicle. The applicant was wounded in the hip and his cousin in the leg during the incident as a result of ricochet bullets. 7. The crime scene investigation report revealed that there were no bullet holes on the left side or the back of the lorry. Three of the tyres were flat, namely the two front tyres and the rear right tyre. Eight bullet holes were observed on the right wing over the tyres, three bullet holes in the petrol tank, a bullet entry and exit hole on the front right door, and another bullet hole on the right wheel rim. The gendarme officers further collected a total of nine bullet cases from the scene of the incident. 8. On the same day, a major from the District Gendarmerie wrote to the Yüksekova Public Prosecutor and requested authorisation to search the two vehicles which had been stopped by the gendarmes. Upon receipt of authorisation, the gendarme officers searched the two lorries. They found sixty‑six barrels of smuggled fuel in the first lorry and forty-five barrels in the applicant’s cousin’s lorry. No other illegal items were found in the vehicles. The applicant’s cousin, N.A., declined to sign the search report. 9. Also on the same day, two gendarme officers tested the lorry belonging to the applicant’s cousin in the presence of the village mayor. They reported that the vehicle had three flat tyres, that there were four bullet holes in the petrol tank, that the engine was working correctly and that the brake system was intact. 10. Subsequently, on the same day, the applicant’s cousin gave a statement to the Yüksekova Public Prosecutor and stated that the applicant had been taken to Van Hospital. He requested that criminal proceedings be initiated against the gendarme officers who had used force against them. He emphasised that when he had been told to stop he had been driving down a steep hill at high speed, and when he could not stop, he had shouted from the window that the brakes were not working. He had had no intention of escaping from the gendarmes. He further denied that he had been transporting smuggled fuel and maintained that the barrels found by the gendarmes must have been from the other vehicle. 11. The public prosecutor also took statements from two eyewitnesses to the incident. These two individuals had also been in the lorry which had been stopped by the gendarmes on suspicion of fuel smuggling. According to their statements, while they were being questioned by the gendarme officers about the barrels found in their lorry, they saw another vehicle approaching. The gendarmes ordered the driver to stop but the driver failed to obey, shouting from the window that the brakes had failed. The driver then tried to pass their vehicle, which was blocking the road, on the right. The gendarmes opened fire, first into the air and then at the tyres. Both witnesses stated that the driver had no intention of escaping and was shouting that he was unable to stop. 12. On 15 December 2008, the applicant’s cousin, N.A., gave a statement to the Hakkari Public Prosecutor. He explained that on the day of the incident, while he was driving down a steep hill, the gendarme officers ordered him to stop. He called out that he would stop, but the gendarmes opened fire and he was shot in the leg. He was able to stop the vehicle by using the handbrake. He stated that he had had no intention or reason to escape. 13. On 20 February 2009 a statement was taken from the applicant at Iskele police station. He explained that on the day of the incident he had been travelling in his cousin’s lorry. His cousin had told him that there was a problem with the brake system of the vehicle. When they approached the checkpoint, a gendarme officer ordered them to stop, and they shouted out that there was a problem with the brakes and that they were not able to stop. The gendarme thought that they were trying to escape and fired a shot in the air and then started shooting at them. The applicant was shot in the hip. He concluded that the gendarme who had shot at them was not at fault, as he must have thought that they were trying to escape. 14. On 22 July 2008 statements were taken from the accused gendarme officers by a sergeant from the Yeniköprü Gendarme Command. They all stated that they had ordered the driver of the lorry to stop on suspicion of fuel smuggling. The driver initially stopped the vehicle. When the officers asked about the load of the lorry, he started driving away in an attempt to escape. The officers explained that they first fired warning shots in the air and then shot at the tyres to stop the lorry. They considered that the force they had used had been proportionate as they had only used their guns, whereas they were also equipped with heavy machine guns and hand grenades. 15. Based on the evidence in the file, on 26 April 2009 the Yüsekova Public Prosecutor delivered a decision not to prosecute. He concluded that the use of force had been legal pursuant to Article 11 of Law no. 2803 on the establishment, duties and jurisdiction of the gendarmerie and section 39 (i) of the Regulation on the Duties and Powers of the Gendarmerie. He found it established that the driver of the vehicle in which the applicant was travelling had disobeyed the order to stop and had continued driving. He further pointed out that the lorry had not stopped and that the officers had first fired warning shots in the air and had then shot at the tyres of the lorry. 16. On 4 June 2009 the Van Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding the decision of the Yüksekova Public Prosecutor to be in line with domestic law.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicants were born in 1970, 1963 and 1989 and live in Paks and Budapest respectively. 6. At the material time, Mr Vajnai was Vice-President and Ms Noé and Mr Bakó were activists of the Workers’ Party (Munkáspárt), a registered left-wing political party. The party had no known intention of participating in Hungarian political life in defiance of the rule of law. 7. On 21 December 2008 the applicants organised an event in front of a shopping mall in Budapest, entitled “Anti-Capitalist Santa Claus”, with the intention to demonstrate against consumerism, draw attention to poverty, point out the shortcomings of market economy, and demand free internet access for all. 8. To express their affiliation with Communism, four persons, including the applicants, displayed a sheet and a flag with a five-pointed red star and distributed leaflets with their political message, depicting red stars. 9. In application of section 269/B(1) of the Criminal Code, a police patrol which was present called on the applicants to terminate the demonstration, checked their identity and committed them to Budapest VI District Police Department for interrogation. 10. On 23 December 2008 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Board against the police measures. They relied on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights adopted in the case of Vajnai v. Hungary (no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008). They referred to the Court’s finding that the prosecution for having worn a red star had amounted to a violation of Mr Vajnai’s freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention. 11. The applicants’ complaints were dismissed by the Complaints Board on 4 March 2009. 12. The applicants’ further complaints against the measures were dismissed by the District Police Department on 22 May 2009. This decision was upheld by the Budapest Chief Police Commander, acting as a second-instance authority, on 17 November 2009. 13. On 29 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ requests for judicial review. The court held that the display of the red star contravened section 269/B of the Criminal Code, despite the Vajnai judgment, whose application in the circumstances had been no task of the police officers present on the premises. Consequently, the applicants’ identity check and committal to the Police Department was justified under sections 29 (1) and 33 (1) of Act no. XXXIV of 1994 on the Police. 14. In review proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision on 22 June 2011 (in the case of Mr Bakó), 27 June 2011 (in the case of Ms Noé), and 5 September 2011 (in the case of Mr Vajnai), endorsing in essence the first-instance decisions’ reasoning. 15. The applicants, jointly (they had a lawyer in common), incurred altogether 2,760 euros in legal costs.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Riga. 6. On 3 March 2004 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for Internet fraud. 7. In the course of the pre-trial investigation the applicant underwent two inpatient psychiatric examinations. On both occasions the applicant was found to have full mental capacity (pieskaitāms). 8. On 3 October 2006 the Riga City Vidzeme District Court found the applicant guilty and gave him a suspended six-month prison sentence. The applicant and his counsel appealed. 9. Taking into account that during the hearing of the appeal court of 9 January 2007 the applicant was said to have “behaved aggressively towards the advocate and the prosecutor [and] in the course of the subsequent hearings [had] made illogical and disjointed statements”, on 13 March 2007 the Riga Regional Court decided to request an outpatient psychiatric assessment. 10. On 27 April 2007 a psychiatrist found that the applicant was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and that his participation in court hearings was therefore “unhelpful” (nav lietderīga). The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant undergo outpatient treatment. 11. On 18 June 2007 a single judge of the Riga Regional Court decided to initiate proceedings with a view to applying a compulsory measure of a medical nature. Taking into account that “the nature of [the applicant’s] illness [did] not permit him to take part in court proceedings”, it was decided that the case would be examined in the applicant’s absence, with the participation of a prosecutor, defence counsel, a legal representative for the applicant and an expert psychiatrist. The applicant’s mother was named as his legal representative. 12. The applicant’s mother did not attend the following hearing on 19 September 2007. She had sent the court a letter stating that she would be unable to attend court hearings due to ill-health. She also expressed her belief that her son had legal capacity and was able to express his own point of view. During the hearing the prosecutor suggested that D.A., a psychiatrist responsible for the applicant’s medical treatment, could better serve as his legal representative, a suggestion which was approved by the court with the consent of the applicant’s counsel and the expert psychiatrist. 13. The subsequent hearing on 16 October 2007 was attended by D.A., who described the applicant as “chaotic”, “contemptuous” and as having “delirious fantasies”. She considered that he should be ordered to undergo involuntary outpatient psychiatric treatment. She explained that if the applicant did not take medication he did not become aggressive, but became “a burden on society”. At the conclusion of the hearing, the defence counsel, D.A. and the prosecutor all agreed that an additional inpatient psychiatric assessment ought to be carried out, which was ordered by the court. 14. The inpatient assessment was completed on 27 November 2007 and the applicant was diagnosed with episodic paranoid schizophrenia with increasing residual symptoms (paranoīda epizodiskas norises šizofrēnija ar pieaugošām reziduālām parādībām). It was concluded that at the time he had committed the incriminated acts, he had been unable to control his actions. It was therefore recommended that he be relieved of criminal liability. 15. On 18 February 2008 the Riga Regional Court decided to relieve the applicant of criminal liability and imposed a compulsory measure of a medical nature – outpatient treatment in a medical institution. It held that such a measure best corresponded to the non-violent nature of the applicant’s actions and to his state of health. It appears that this decision was not appealed against and entered into force on 11 March 2008. The Riga City Vidzeme District Court was named as the court responsible for supervising enforcement of the Regional Court’s order. 16. On 1 March 2007 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for fraud. On 15 March 2007 the police received information that he was registered (atrodas uzskaitē) as an outpatient of a psychiatric hospital. 17. On 8 October 2007 the applicant was informed that he was a suspect. On the same day, referring to the psychiatric assessment of 27 April 2007 (see paragraph 10 above), the police decided to request an additional forensic psychiatric assessment of him. 18. The applicant underwent such an assessment. A report dated 29 October 2007 established that he was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and was therefore unable to take responsibility for his actions or control them. Because of this he was deemed unable to participate in the pre-trial investigation of the criminal case against him or to give adequate statements during the investigation. The expert report recommended that a compulsory measure of a medical nature be ordered – outpatient psychiatric treatment in a medical institution. 19. The prosecutor in charge of the case against the applicant decided to pursue proceedings with a view to applying a compulsory measure of a medical nature. After receiving information from the psychiatric hospital that in the first set of proceedings the applicant’s legal representative was D.A., on 7 February 2008 the prosecutor decided to allow D.A. to again take on that role. 20. On 19 August 2008 a hearing of the applicant’s case was held in the Riga Regional Court. The panel consisted of judge I.Š. and two lay judges. The applicant was represented by a lawyer A.Ā. A prosecutor, an expert psychiatrist and D.A. also attended the hearing, but the applicant was not present. According to the applicant, he had not appointed A.Ā. or anyone else as his defence counsel. 21. D.A. stated to the court that the applicant had: “obsessive thoughts concerning various acts of a legal nature. I believe that if he had an opportunity to arrive at any office, if he had an access to a computer, he would be capable of committing repeated criminal acts. ... I consider that [the applicant] could be a danger to society and that he should receive treatment”. 22. The court also heard the testimony of the expert psychiatrist G.S. who had produced the expert report of 29 October 2007 (see paragraph 18 above). G.S. explained to the court that at the time the expert report was drawn up she had not been aware that the applicant had previously been involved in other criminal proceedings in which he had been found to be in a state of mental incapacity (nepieskaitāms) and that he “was continuing [his] criminal activity”. She considered that nobody could control whether the applicant was taking medication and therefore recommended that he undergo involuntary inpatient treatment. 23. The applicant’s defence counsel indicated to the court that, given the applicant was continuing to commit crimes while ill and taking into account his mental state, it was necessary to order his inpatient treatment in a psychiatric hospital. The prosecutor agreed. 24. In a decision dated 20 August 2008 the court held that the applicant had to be relieved of criminal liability. It also considered that he posed a danger to society and ordered his inpatient treatment in a psychiatric hospital. A copy of the decision was sent to D.A. on 25 August 2008. 25. The decision was not appealed against in time and became final on 2 September 2008. 26. On 12 September 2008 the decision was sent to a psychiatric hospital in Riga for enforcement. 27. It is not clear when the applicant first received a copy of that decision. The Government provided copies of two not entirely legible handwritten pages, which allegedly came from the applicant’s medical records, and which appear to indicate that on 19 August 2008 (the day before the Regional Court’s decision was pronounced) the applicant had been informed of the court’s decision to order his involuntary inpatient treatment and had expressed his frustration with that decision. The applicant appears to claim that he never received a copy of the decision. 28. On 9 September 2008 the applicant requested the Riga Regional Court to revoke the compulsory measures of a medical nature imposed on him “in full”. However, the wording of his letter only referred to the decision of 18 February 2008 (see paragraph 15 above). In a response given on 16 September 2008 judge I.Š. observed that the applicant was not complaining about the decision of 20 August 2008, which had become final on 2 September 2008, and therefore returned his complaint letter to him. 29. On 13 March 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Riga Regional Court against “the decision of 19 August 2008”. Since he received no reply, on 26 March 2009 he inquired as to its progress. In a letter of 9 April 2009 judge I.Š. “once again” explained to the applicant that he had been represented in court by D.A., who had not lodged an appeal. The decision had therefore become final. The letter further informed the applicant that he did not have the locus standi to lodge an appeal. On 14 April 2009 the applicant received a letter from another judge of the Riga Regional Court, D.T., who explained to him that only D.A. could lodge an appeal in his name. 30. On 9 April 2009 judge I.Š. sent the decision of 20 August 2008 to the police with a request that it be enforced. 31. On 2 October 2009 judge I.Š., acting pursuant to section 607(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law (see paragraph 46 below) requested an assessment of the applicant’s mental health in order to decide the question of whether to continue applying the compulsory measure of a medical nature. 32. On 8 October 2009 the director of the psychiatric hospital invited the Regional Court to examine whether it was necessary to continue applying the compulsory measure of a medical nature to the applicant and forwarded to it the report of a medical panel dated 20 August 2009. The panel had found that the applicant had regularly attended the hospital, but had done so “without any inner motivation and without any understanding of his illness or of the necessity to take medication”. It was concluded that the applicant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and that despite treatment with medication, there was no evidence of any stable improvement to his psychiatric health or that he was in remission. It was recommended that the applicant be ordered to continue outpatient treatment. 33. It does not appear that the Regional Court took any decision pursuant to section 607(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law. 34. On the evening of 22 October 2009 several police officers entered the applicant’s flat and took him to a psychiatric hospital in Riga. According to the applicant, on 26 October 2009 doctors at the hospital informed him that he had been brought in on the basis of a decision of the Riga Regional Court. 35. On 29 October 2009 judge I.Š. sent a request to the psychiatric hospital for a report on the state of the applicant’s mental health, in order to examine the question of whether it was necessary to continue involuntary inpatient psychiatric treatment pursuant to section 607(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law. The letter indicated, inter alia, that the applicant had not been admitted to hospital any earlier than on 22 October 2009 “for reasons unknown to the court”. 36. On 31 October 2009 the applicant addressed a petition to the Supreme Court. He indicated that he had been undergoing outpatient psychiatric treatment in line with the recommendations of panels of medical specialists that had been adopted in September 2008 and in February and August 2009. He requested the Supreme Court to quash the decision which had apparently ordered his admission to the psychiatric hospital (the contents of which were unknown to him). Lastly, the applicant pointed out that he had not been present at the court hearing during which the question of the deprivation of his liberty had been decided and that he had had no lawyer representing him there. 37. The applicant received a reply dated 5 November 2009 from judge I.Š., who explained that his treatment as an outpatient between the adoption of the decision on 20 August 2008 and 22 October 2009 had been erroneous (nepamatota). As regards the decision of 20 August 2008 the judge explained that the applicant’s interests had been represented by D.A. and A.Ā., neither of whom had appealed against the decision. It had therefore become final. 38. In the meantime, on 3 November 2009 a panel of three medical specialists issued a report, finding that the applicant’s health had “changed notably, characterised by symptoms of delirium against a background of reduced affection”. The report recommended that the applicant be ordered to continue involuntary inpatient treatment in a psychiatric hospital. 39. On 15 November 2009 the applicant sent a complaint to the Supreme Court against the “decision” of judge I.Š. contained in her letter of 5 November 2009. He pointed out that after the decision of 20 August 2008 had been adopted in his absence and without him being represented by a lawyer, he had been complying with the terms of that decision by being treated in a psychiatric hospital from September 2008 onwards. The applicant asked the Supreme Court to quash the decision on the basis of which the police had detained him and taken him to the psychiatric hospital on 22 October 2009. He repeated his allegation that he was not and had never been represented by a lawyer. The response he received to the complaint again came from judge I.Š., which was sent on 23 November 2009, and was worded almost identically to the response she had sent previously. 40. On 28 December 2009 the Riga Regional Court decided to continue the applicant’s involuntary inpatient treatment. The decision was amenable to appeal. The applicant received it on 11 January 2010. No appeal was lodged. 41. The applicant was released from the hospital on 7 June 2010 on the basis of a decision of the Riga Regional Court of 27 May 2010 ordering his treatment as an outpatient.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Germany. 5. On 7 July 1999 the Ankara Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s arrest in absentia on suspicion of membership of the PKK, an illegal organisation. 6. On 13 July 1999 the applicant was captured in Chisinau, Moldova, and taken to Turkey on the same day. He was interrogated by MIT (the National Intelligence Organisation of Turkey) agents until 21 July 1999. 7. In July 1999, shortly after being taken to Turkey, the applicant was described by a number of media outlets as the “second man of the PKK”, the “European representative of the PKK”, “a terrorist” and “a traitor to the country”. According to an article published in Turkish Daily News of 22 July 1999, the National Intelligence Agency of Turkey (MIT) issued a press statement in which it stated that the applicant had worked to increase terrorist activities and incited the PKK supporters in Turkey to use violence. 8. On 21 July 1999 the applicant was handed over to the Ankara Security Directorate for further questioning. At the time of transfer, a hand-written delivery report was produced. It is not known who drafted the report. 9. On 23 July 1999 the applicant was brought first before the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court and subsequently before a judge at the Ankara State Security Court, who ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody. 10. On 9 August 1999 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other persons. The applicant was charged with being a leading member of the PKK, whose aim was to bring about the secession of part of the national territory. The charges against the applicant were brought under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. 11. The public prosecutor accused the applicant of being one of the leaders of the PKK in Europe and of having been involved in the training of PKK members in Romania. According to the indictment, the applicant had been in contact with Mr Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, and had provided him with information about the persons who had been trained. The public prosecutor further noted that when he had questioned Mr Öcalan on 22 February 1999, the latter had maintained that he had given instructions to the applicant regarding that training. Moreover, the leader of the PKK had confirmed the veracity of that statement during his trial on 1 June 1999. 12. The public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court further claimed that during telephone conversations with a number of people in Turkey, the applicant had issued instructions to perpetrate acts of violence following the arrest of Mr Öcalan. In the indictment, the public prosecutor quoted the transcripts of eight of the applicant’s alleged telephone conversations dated 4, 18 and 22 February 1999 and 1, 5, 7, 15 and 19 March 1999. The public prosecutor also noted that the applicant had referred to the State of Turkey as “the enemy” in his conversations. Furthermore, according to the indictment, a number of PKK members – A.G., K.O., Ş.Ö., H.K., N.Y., M.Ş. and A.Y. – had maintained in their statements that the applicant had been involved in the activities mentioned in the indictment. As a result, the public prosecutor alleged that the applicant had issued instructions for hundreds of bombings, fires, hunger strikes, suicide attacks and massacres, including the killing of thirteen people as a result of an attack on Mavi Çarşı, a shopping centre, on 13 March 1999 and that he had trained members of the PKK in his capacity as one of the leaders of the organisation. 13. On 16 September 1999 the Ankara State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case. At the end of the hearing, the court decided to enquire whether the persons who had made statements regarding the accused had been prosecuted and, if so, to request copies of all the statements given during the criminal proceedings against them. 14. During the second hearing on 14 October 1999 the applicant’s lawyer asked the court, inter alia, to remove the transcripts of the applicant’s alleged telephone conversations from the case file. The public prosecutor demanded that the request be refused, and the court duly dismissed it. 15. On an unspecified date the police sent the prosecution a document containing the statement of an alleged member of the PKK, C.P., taken by the police. During the hearing of 11 November 1999 the statement was read out in court. According to the document, C.P. had testified against the applicant. The applicant denied the veracity of the statement, claiming that he did not know C.P. At the end of the hearing, the court decided to enquire whether criminal proceedings had been instituted against C.P. and, if so, to request all of his statements given during those criminal proceedings. 16. During the fourth hearing in the case, held on 9 December 1999, the applicant’s lawyer maintained that only the indictments concerning A.G., K.O., Ş.Ö., H.K., N.Y., M.Ş., A.Y. and C.P. had been included in the file and asked the court to include all the statements they had given during the criminal proceedings against them. The court postponed its decision on the request of the applicant’s lawyer to a forthcoming hearing. 17. On 18 January 2000, at the end of the fifth hearing, the Ankara State Security Court decided to request a copy of the case file in the proceedings against C.P. 18. The Ankara State Security Court repeated its request seven times between 8 February and 27 June 2000, as it had not received the aforementioned case file. During the same period the court also asked a number of other courts to send a copy of the statements made by A.G., K.O., Ş.Ö., H.K., N.Y., M.Ş. and A.Y. during the criminal proceedings against them. 19. At the eleventh hearing in the case, on 27 June 2000, the applicant’s lawyer asked the Ankara State Security Court to summon everyone who had allegedly made statements against the applicant to testify before the court. The court did not respond to his request. 20. Six more hearings were held between 27 June and 21 November 2000. During that period the Ankara State Security Court received the documents that it had requested from the other courts. In the course of the hearings, the applicant’s lawyer maintained before the court that the statements of the persons who had allegedly testified against the applicant did not contain any reference to the applicant. At the end of the hearing on 21 November 2000, the court instructed the public prosecutor to prepare his observations on the merits of the case. 21. On 12 December 2000 the public prosecutor’s observations on the merits of the case were read out before the court. 22. At the hearing of 21 December 2000, the applicant’s lawyer filed a petition with the first-instance court in response to the public prosecutor’s observations. In his petition, the applicant’s lawyer contended that the public prosecutor’s observations had referred to recordings of telephone conversations which were in the case file. He submitted that he had already asked the court to remove the transcripts of the recordings from the case file as they could not be used as evidence. He further noted that the applicant had denied that he was the person whose conversations had been recorded. The lawyer requested the court to order a comparative voice analysis and to enquire whether the phone tapping had been conducted in accordance with the legal procedure and on the basis of a court order. He also asked the court to find out the identities of the persons with whom the applicant had allegedly spoken (designated as “X” in the documents in the case file) and to take statements from them about those conversations. 23. On the same day the Ankara State Security Court accepted the request for a comparative voice analysis and dismissed the remaining requests without providing any reasons. 24. At the next hearing, on 6 February 2001, the applicant’s lawyer complained that two police officers had been assigned to conduct the voice analysis. He argued that police officers could not be impartial given the involvement of the police in the case. He therefore asked the court to appoint impartial experts. The court allowed his request and asked TRT (Radio and Television Corporation of Turkey), the national public broadcaster, to assign impartial experts to conduct the analysis and to prepare a report. 25. In April 2001 TRT informed the first-instance court that no appropriate expert could be found. Following receipt of that information, the applicant’s lawyer filed a petition with the first-instance court on 26 April 2011 repeating his requests contained in the petition of 21 December 2000. In his petition, the applicant’s lawyer also requested that a copy of the audiotapes be provided to him and his client. 26. At the hearing of 26 April 2001 the Ankara State Security Court decided to ask the criminal departments of the gendarmerie and the police to assign appropriate experts for the voice analysis. The court dismissed the applicant’s requests in the petition of the same date, holding that it had already ruled on them. 27. On 22 May 2001 the applicant’s lawyer filed a further petition with the court repeating the requests contained in his petitions of 21 December 2000 and 26 April 2001. He further maintained that any experts assigned in the case should be impartial. At the hearing held on the same date, the first-instance court once again dismissed the requests of the applicant’s lawyer. The court noted that the objection to the experts was groundless and that it had already dismissed the other requests. 28. On 29 May 2001 the applicant’s lawyer filed a petition with the court objecting to the court dismissing his requests. No decision was taken in respect of this petition. 29. On 19 June 2001 the applicant’s lawyer filed a further petition repeating his previous requests. At the hearing held on the same day, the first-instance court dismissed those requests without providing any reason. The court also decided to deliver the audiotapes to the designated expert, Mr L.B., a police officer from the criminal laboratory at the General Security Directorate. 30. On 3 July 2001 the expert submitted the transcripts of the recordings of the telephone conversations to the first-instance court. 31. On 10 July 2001 the applicant’s lawyer made written submissions to the court in which he maintained his objections to the expert’s work. He further contended that the defence did not know whether all the conversations had been transcribed, since the court had refused to deliver a copy of the audiotapes to the applicant and his lawyer. The lawyer claimed that the court’s refusal to do so was in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. In his petition, the applicant’s lawyer once again asked the court to conduct an inquiry into the legal procedure concerning the phone tapping, to give a copy of the recordings to the defence, to designate an independent and impartial expert to conduct a comparative voice analysis, and to find out the identities of the persons with whom the applicant had allegedly spoken. Lastly, he asked the court to request a copy of the case file of the criminal proceedings concerning the bombing of Mavi Çarşı. 32. On 10 July 2001, at the twenty-fourth hearing in the case, the first-instance court asked the applicant’s lawyer whether his client would provide a vocal sample for the voice identification analysis. The applicant’s lawyer replied that he and his client would inform the court of their position on that point once the court had responded to their requests contained in his petition submitted on that day. At the end of the hearing, the court dismissed the requests of the applicant’s lawyer, holding that those requests had already been refused. It designated a judge and two police officers, Mr L.B. and Mr C.Y., as experts to conduct the comparative voice analysis on the same day and invited the applicant to participate in the voice identification process if he so wished. 33. On the same date as the voice identification process started in the presence of the applicant, the applicant’s lawyer maintained that his client would not provide a voice sample until the discrepancies between the transcripts prepared by the public prosecutor’s office and those prepared by Mr L.B. had been resolved. He further contended that as Mr L.B. had already been involved in the preparation of the transcripts, another expert should have been designated. The public prosecutor submitted, in reply, that there was no reason to believe that officers from the criminal laboratory at the General Security Directorate were partial and that the applicant’s behaviour had been unlawful. The judge decided to end the examination in view of the applicant’s unwillingness to participate. 34. In a petition dated 23 July 2001, the applicant’s lawyer asked the first-instance court to accept the withdrawal of their request for a comparative voice analysis. The lawyer contended that the applicant had not made those telephone conversations and that it was the defence who had asked for that examination in the first place. However, in view of the court’s refusal of their other requests, he believed that it was not possible to have a fair trial in the applicant’s case. 35. At the end of the hearing held on 21 August 2001 the Ankara State Security Court decided to consider the applicant’s request contained in the petition dated 23 July 2001 at the same time as it considered the case on the merits. On the same day the court decided to request a copy of the case file of proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court following a request by the representative of one of the applicant’s co-accused. 36. The first-instance court adjourned the hearings four times between 21 August and 30 October 2001, as the Istanbul State Security Court had not sent the documents requested. 37. At the twenty-eighth hearing held on 30 October 2001, following receipt of the aforementioned documents, the first-instance court asked the public prosecutor to submit his observations on the merits of the case. 38. At the next hearing on 27 November 2001 the public prosecutor asked the court to take his observations of 12 December 2000 into consideration. 39. In a petition dated 27 December 2001 filed with the first-instance court, the applicant’s lawyer maintained that the refusal of his requests that the court hear the persons who had allegedly made statements against the applicant and those who had allegedly had telephone conversations with him, and of his requests for a copy of the recordings of the telephone conversations and regarding the designation of the experts, had been in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention. He further contended that the statements that State officials had made to the press referring to the applicant as a “terrorist” had been in violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. No decision was taken in respect of that petition. 40. During the thirty-first and thirty-second hearings held on 24 January and 5 February 2002 the applicant and his co-accused responded to the public prosecutor’s observations on the merits of the case. 41. On 5 March 2002 the Ankara State Security Court decided to ask the Diyarbakır courts for another judgment rendered by the Diyarbakır Military Court in the 1980’s, convicting the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. Between 5 March and 23 May 2002 the court adjourned three hearings awaiting a copy of the aforementioned judgment. 42. At the thirty-sixth hearing on 23 May 2002 the court received the judgment that it had requested on 5 March 2002 and decided to adjourn the trial pending examination of the case file. 43. On 30 May 2002 the first-instance court asked the applicant to make additional defence submissions given that he might be convicted of membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code, instead of Article 125 of the same Code. 44. On 20 June 2002 the applicant’s lawyer filed a petition with the court, requesting that the latter take into account their previous submissions, in the context of the application of Article 168 of the former Criminal Code. The applicant’s lawyer also repeated his previous requests. 45. At the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth hearings held on 11 and 20 June 2002, the first-instance court decided to adjourn the trial as the composition of the court had changed and there was a new president. 46. On 25 June 2002 the Ankara State Security Court rendered its judgment in the case. The applicant was convicted of membership of the PKK under Article 168 § 1 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced to eighteen years and nine months’ imprisonment. 47. In its judgment, the first-instance court cited the following evidence contained in the case file: the statements that A.G., K.O., Ş.Ö., H.K., N.Y., M.Ş., A.Y., C.P. and V.T. had made to the police within the context of the proceedings against them; the indictments in the cases against the aforementioned persons; the statements made by Abdullah Öcalan to the police, the public prosecutor and during his own trial; a document prepared by the anti-terrorism branch of the General Security Directorate regarding the acts of terrorism that had occurred between 1 January and 4 August 1999; and the transcripts, prepared by experts, of the telephone conversations between the applicant and a number of persons designated as “X”. 48. The first-instance court noted that A.G., K.O., Ş.Ö., H.K., N.Y., M.Ş., A.Y., C.P. and V.T. had asserted in their statements that the applicant was a member of the PKK and the leader of the organisation in Europe. As to the content of the transcripts, the court noted that it documented that the applicant had given instructions and orders on the carrying out of the acts of violence that had occurred following the arrest of Mr Öcalan. 49. In the light of the aforementioned evidence, the Ankara State Security Court found it established that the applicant was a member of the PKK and the leader of the organisation in Europe. Its judgment stated that he had been involved in the training of PKK members in Romania and had been in contact with Mr Öcalan. In this connection, the court quoted Mr Öcalan’s statements to the public prosecutor after his arrest, in which he claimed that the applicant had trained PKK members in Romania. 50. The court further quoted the transcripts of eight telephone conversations and concluded that in the course of those conversations the applicant had issued instructions for the carrying out of acts of terrorism in Turkey. It noted, however, that the applicant had not been directly involved in those acts. The court also noted that the applicant’s instructions had been of a general nature. As a result, according to the court, a direct link between the acts of terrorism, in particular the attack on Mavi Çarşı on 13 March 1999, and the applicant’s instructions could not be established. The Ankara State Security Court therefore did not convict the applicant under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. Nevertheless, noting that the PKK had given the applicant the specific task of inciting violent acts in Turkey after the arrest of Mr Öcalan, the court convicted the applicant of membership of the PKK under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code. 51. Both the prosecution and the applicant appealed against the decision. 52. In his petitions dated 18 October and 19 November 2002, the applicant’s lawyer objected to the court’s having cited as evidence the statements of Mr Öcalan, A.G., K.O., Ş.Ö., H.K., N.Y., M.Ş., A.Y., C.P. and V.T. and the transcripts of the applicant’s alleged telephone conversations. He submitted in particular that all those persons had denied the veracity of the statements taken from them by the police and that M.Ş., A.Y. and Ş.Ö. had been acquitted of the charges brought against them. Moreover, the investigation against K.O. had been concluded with a decision not to prosecute. The applicant’s lawyer noted that the first‑instance court had not cited the accusations against the applicant contained in their statements in the reasoning of its judgment, which demonstrated that there had been no reason to convict his client. He complained, inter alia, that the first-instance court had failed to investigate whether a court order had been issued prior to the recording of the telephone conversations used as evidence in the trial. The court had also failed to provide the defence with a copy of the audiotapes and to hear those individuals designated as “X” in the transcripts of the telephone conversations. The applicant’s lawyer submitted that those deficiencies in the proceedings constituted a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. 53. The Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his opinion on the merits of both parties’ appeals. In his written opinion (tebliğname) to the 9th Chamber of the Court of Cassation for Criminal Law Matters, the Chief Public Prosecutor advised that the appeals be rejected and that the first-instance judgment be upheld, as it was in compliance with procedural rules and law. That opinion was not submitted to the applicant, despite the fact that in his petition of 19 November 2002 he had asked to be notified. According to the applicant’s submissions, his lawyer was not aware of the written opinion until it was read out during the hearing before the Court of Cassation. 54. On 12 December 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Ankara State Security Court. The Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation applied for an exceptional appeal procedure before the Joint Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation, requesting that the applicant be sentenced under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. His request was dismissed. 55. On 30 November 2008 the applicant was released from prison on probation and returned to Germany, where his family were living.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicants were born in 1942 and 1963 respectively and live in Budapest. 7. At the material time, Mr Vajnai was Vice-President and Mr Horváth was a member and activist of the Workers’ Party (Munkáspárt), a registered left-wing political party. The party had no known intention of participating in Hungarian political life in defiance of the rule of law. 8. Mr Vajnai was the editor of the Party’s web page containing news and articles related to the Hungarian and European Communist movements. On 18 November 2003 Mr Vajnai placed a five-pointed red star and a sickle-and-hammer logo on the web page. 9. On 3 April 2004 the applicants participated in a peaceful demonstration commemorating the 1945 Soviet liberation of Hungary from Nazi occupation. Mr Vajnai wore a five-pointed red star on his jacket, whilst Mr Horváth wore a sweater ornamented with five-pointed red star and a sickle-and-hammer pattern. 10. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were instituted against them for the offence of having worn totalitarian symbols in public. In the context of these proceedings, the public prosecutor summoned the applicants. On 10 September 2004 they appeared in the public prosecutor’s office wearing five-pointed red stars on their jackets. 11. On 11 March and 2 June 2004 and 16 November 2005, in the context of other criminal proceedings against him, Mr Vajnai appeared in court wearing a five-pointed red star on his jacket. On 5 November 2004, the applicant spoke on the national television about his Party’s political aims and the criminal proceedings against him. On that occasion he wore a five-pointed red star on his jacket. 12. On 2 July 2005 the applicants participated in a peaceful demonstration in the National Cemetery. Mr Vajnai wore a five-pointed red star on his jacket, whilst Mr Horváth wore a five-pointed red star on his rain coat. 13. On 22 March 2007 the applicants were convicted by the Pest Central District Court under section 269/B (1) of the Criminal Code of the offence of having worn totalitarian symbols in public. The court observed that the applicants had worn a five-pointed red star and a sickle-and-hammer logo on several occasions of public appearance. 14. Mr Vajnai was sentenced to a criminal fine of 120,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) and ordered to pay another HUF 45,000 in criminal costs[1]. In the case of Mr Horváth, the court refrained from imposing a sentence for a probationary period of one year. 15. On 10 June 2008 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this judgment. 16. On 8 July 2008 the European Court of Human Rights adopted a judgment in a case introduced by Mr Vajnai on account of a previous conviction similar in nature (see Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, 8 July 2008). The Court held that prosecution for having worn a red star amounted to a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention. 17. Subsequently, the applicants challenged the Regional Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court. Relying on section 10(2) of the Criminal Code, they claimed that their conduct did not represent danger for society in the face of the Vajnai judgment. 18. On 23 June 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ petition for review.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Baku. 6. The applicant was deputy chairman of the Popular Front Party. He stood in the elections to the National Assembly of 6 November 2005 as a candidate of the opposition bloc Azadliq. He was registered as a candidate by the Constituency Electoral Commission (“the ConEC”) for the single‑mandate Sabail Electoral Constituency no. 29. 7. There were a total of thirty-two polling stations in the constituency, twenty-nine of which were ordinary polling stations. Polling Station no. 30 was set up on the premises of a temporary detention centre so that persons detained there could vote. Polling Stations nos. 31 and 32 were set up shortly before the elections exclusively for military servicemen belonging to two military units stationed within the constituency. Those military units were permanently stationed in the Bayil and Badamdar suburbs of Baku. 8. According to the minutes of the ConEC meeting of 29 September 2005, a copy of which was submitted by the Government, on that date the ConEC decided, inter alia, to appoint members to the precinct (polling station) electoral commissions (“the PEC”) for Polling Stations nos. 31 and 32. It appears from the minutes that five out of six members of each PEC in question were military officers or personnel of those military units, with the exception of one member nominated to each PEC by an opposition party. In each PEC, three of the five “military members” were nominated by the ruling party. According to the applicant, prior to the proceedings before the Court, he had never been provided with the full text of the minutes of the ConEC meeting of 29 September 2005. 9. The official election results in the constituency showed that the applicant had received an overall total of 3,454 votes and finished in second place. Of those votes, 3,301 had been cast in Polling Stations nos. 1 to 29 and 153 had been cast in Polling Stations nos. 30, 31 and 32. 10. The winning candidate (M.) received an overall total of 3,661 votes. Almost half of those, a total of 1,816 votes, had been cast in Polling Stations nos. 30, 31 and 32. Of those, 1,369 votes, which constituted over a third of his total vote count, had been cast in the polling stations (nos. 31 and 32) created exclusively for military voting (779 and 590 votes respectively). 11. On 8 November 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) alleging a number of violations of electoral law in his constituency. He requested that the election results in Polling Stations nos. 30, 31 and 32 be invalidated. He complained, inter alia, of the following: (a) that the setting up of Polling Stations nos. 31 and 32 exclusively for military voting was in breach of Article 35.5 of the Electoral Code, which required that military servicemen should vote in ordinary polling stations and which stipulated that special military polling stations should be set up only in exceptional circumstances. In this case, there were no such exceptional circumstances and the personnel of each military unit in question should have voted in one or more of the several ordinary polling stations already located within very short walking distances of their barracks; (b) that the PECs of Polling Stations nos. 31 and 32, consisting mostly of military officers, had acted as if they were accountable to the Ministry of Defence and not the superior electoral commissions, and that two of the duly appointed PEC members, nominated by the opposition, had been denied access to the polling stations; (c) that in the three “closed” polling stations (nos. 30, 31 and 32) the elections had been unfair, and military servicemen and detainees had voted under coercion. It was noted by observers in Polling Stations nos. 31 and 32 that high-ranking military officers had pressured military servicemen to vote for M. Similarly, undue pressure had been put on detainees in Polling Station no. 30. As a result, M. received about as many votes in those three “closed” polling stations as in all twenty-nine of the other (ordinary) polling stations of the constituency (where he had clearly lost to the applicant by a large margin), which allowed him to pull slightly ahead in the overall vote count. The results of the voting in the three “closed” polling stations and their effect on the election clearly showed that the election had been rigged in favour of the candidate supported by the ruling party. 12. In support of the above complaints, the applicant submitted copies of written observations made by several observers at those polling stations. 13. On 21 November 2005 the CEC issued a decision invalidating the election results in Polling Stations nos. 20 and 21 of Sabail Electoral Constituency no. 29, having found that the electoral law had been breached in those polling stations. It did not provide any details as to the exact nature of those breaches. That decision did not affect the overall election results in the constituency. The CEC’s decision did not mention the applicant’s complaints concerning Polling Stations nos. 30, 31 and 32. 14. On 24 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal against the CEC decision, reiterating the complaints that he had made before the CEC. During the Court of Appeal hearing, a representative of the CEC argued generally, without addressing any of the applicant’s factual arguments in detail, that the elections in Polling Stations nos. 30, 31 and 32 had been lawful and that there were no grounds for invalidating the votes cast in those polling stations. 15. On 26 November 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that he had failed to substantiate his allegations. In particular, the judgment read as follows: “Under Article 14.2 of the CCP, the court may examine, and rely on, only the evidence submitted by the parties. Despite the requirement of the above-mentioned Article, the claimant, H.H. Karimov, and his counsel, [S.T.], have not been able to produce before the court any reliable evidence in support of the allegations made in the claim. Under Article 77.1 of the CCP, each party must prove the facts to which it refers as a basis for its claims and objections. Under Article 217.4 of the same Code, the court may rely in its judgment only on the evidence examined at the court hearing. Having regard to the above, the court does not find any grounds for upholding the claim and rejects as unsubstantiated [the applicant’s] claim against [the CEC] requesting the invalidation of the election results in Polling Stations nos. 30, 31 and 32 of Sabail Electoral Constituency no. 29 ...” 16. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court, reiterating his complaints. 17. On 30 November 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, essentially on the same grounds as the Court of Appeal. 18. On 1 December 2005 the Constitutional Court confirmed the election results in the majority of the electoral constituencies, including Sabail Electoral Constituency no. 29.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicants own property close to Umeå, in the vicinity of a Natura 2000 area, the European network of nature protection areas established under the EU Habitats Directive of 1992 (see further below at paragraph 33). Most of them live there (permanently or on a part-time basis). 6. On 15 October 1999, the National Rail Administration (Banverket; hereinafter “the NRA”) applied to the Government for permission, under the Environmental Code (Miljöbalken), to construct a 10 km long railway section in a river area in the north of Sweden (constituting the final section of a railway called “Botniabanan”, the total length of which is 190 km). The NRA presented some alternative railway stretches, all located in a specified “corridor”, but recommended the one named “alternative east”. The proposed railway construction concerned certain areas which were or were going to be part of Natura 2000. 7. It appears that six of the present applicants own houses or land within the mentioned “corridor”: Ms Carina Granberg, Ms Agneta Holmström, Mr Gustaf Härestål, Mr Björn Höjer, Ms Inga-Britt Höjer, and Mr Christer Skoog. Ownership of Mr Skoog’s property was transferred to Ms Granberg on 7 January 2011. The properties of the other twelve applicants – houses and land in their ownership or owned houses located on non-freehold sites – are situated outside the “corridor”. The distance from their properties to the “corridor” or the specific stretch of the railway fixed in later proceedings vary; the houses appear to be situated 300 – 2500 metres away whereas the closest piece of land is located about 50 metres from the “corridor”. 8. On 12 June 2003 the Government, after having heard the European Commission, granted the application and allowed the construction of the railway in the proposed “corridor” under the condition, inter alia, that the NRA adopt a railway plan before 1 July 2009 and also a specific plan for the realisation of the necessary environmental compensation measures in the Natura 2000 areas. The plan on compensation measures had to be presented to the Government before the railway plan was adopted. The Government stated, inter alia, that the activity could be permitted, despite its harmful effect on the environment in a Natura 2000 area, if there were no alternative solutions and the railway had to be constructed for reasons of public interest. 9. A number of individual property owners, including three of the applicants in the present case – Ms Bring, Mr Bäcklund and Mr Osterman – petitioned the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) for a judicial review of the case and requested that the Government’s decision be quashed. The property owners claimed that the decision contradicted Swedish law as well as applicable European Union law, including the Habitats Directive. It was argued, firstly, that the decision contravened the general rule in the Environmental Code on the site to be chosen for activities and installations that may affect human health or the environment. This aspect allegedly had a direct and clear bearing on their civil rights. Secondly, they asserted that the Government’s decision violated Swedish regulations on nature conservation by failing to consider relevant alternative sites for the railway. 10. On 1 December 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the petitions for a judicial review because it was not possible to determine who should be considered an interested party at that stage of the railway planning. The exact route of the railway would not be established until the railway plan had been drawn up. Until then, it could not be assessed with any certainty who would be affected to the extent that they were entitled to bring an action or what account should be taken of their interests. Further stating that the parties affected to a sufficient extent by the future railway would be able to obtain a judicial review of the later decision to adopt the railway plan, the court refused the petitioners locus standi. 11. One judge dissented, finding that the issue of locus standi in respect of each petitioner should be further investigated by the court in order to ensure that the individual interests were taken into account, having regard to the binding character of the Government’s decision in the later railway planning proceedings. 12. In 2003 and 2004 the NRA applied to the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) in the County of Västerbotten for a permit to construct the railway in the specific Natura 2000 area and to the Environmental Court (miljödomstolen) in Umeå for permits to build two bridges. 13. The County Administrative Board granted a construction permit for the railway by a decision of 14 October 2004, which was subsequently appealed against to the Environmental Court. 14. The Environmental Court decided to examine the cases jointly. By judgments of 24 May 2005 and 13 June 2005, considering itself bound by the Government’s decision of 12 June 2003 on the permissibility of the railway project, the court decided to grant all the permits requested by the NRA. 15. On 15 June 2006 the Environmental Court of Appeal (Miljööverdomstolen) in Stockholm quashed the Environmental Court’s judgments and referred the cases back to the latter instance. The appellate court found that the Government’s decision had not contained a detailed examination of measures necessary to compensate for environmental harm caused by the railway project, and that these issues had to be settled as part of the determination of the construction permit requests. 16. On 26 April 2007 the Environmental Court decided anew to grant the permits requested by the NRA. The court considered itself bound by the Government’s decision as to the permissibility of the railway project and thus limited its examination to the environmental compensation measures, as indicated by the decision of the Environmental Court of Appeal. 17. Two applicants – Ms Granberg and Mr Skoog – appealed against the Environmental Court’s judgment in so far as it concerned the permit for the railway construction. All applicants except Mr Osterman appealed against the part which concerned the permit to construct the bridges. 18. By a judgment of 6 December 2007 the Environmental Court of Appeal affirmed the binding nature of the Government’s permissibility decision and approved the construction of the railway and the bridges with certain added conditions. 19. On 9 May 2008 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal and, thus, the Environmental Court of Appeal’s judgment became final. 20. On 21 June 2005 the NRA adopted a railway plan for the area in question. 21. Twelve applicants – all but Ms Holmström, Mr Härestål, Mr Höjer, Ms Höjer, Mr Sjöstedt and Mr Stenlund – appealed to the Government against the railway plan. They essentially complained of the specific stretch of the railway, invoking, inter alia, nuisance such as noise and vibrations affecting the enjoyment of their property. 22. By a decision of 28 June 2007 the Government referred to its decision on permissibility of 12 June 2003. It found that the specific stretch chosen in the railway plan was situated within the permitted “corridor” and thus rejected the appeals. 23. All of the applicants and several other petitioners turned to the Supreme Administrative Court and requested that it, by way of a judicial review, order the quashing of the Government’s decision. They claimed, inter alia, that, although their civil rights were affected by the planned railway, they had not had these rights considered and determined by a court, in violation of the Convention. As to the chosen location of the railway, they also asserted that the Government’s decision was contrary to provisions of the Environmental Code and the EU Habitats Directive. 24. On 10 December 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court, after having held a hearing in the case, rejected the petition, finding that the railway plan was in line with the Government’s decision of 12 June 2003 on the permissibility of the railway project and that the proceedings for the adoption of the plan did not demonstrate any failings. The court considered that the question of permissibility of a railway project was within the power of the Government, which had to take into account public interests such as environmental, industrial, economic and regional policy. The Government’s permissibility decision was binding for the subsequent proceedings in that courts and other decision-making bodies could not examine issues that had been determined by that decision. Thus, in the proceedings concerning the construction permits requested by the NRA, the various instances could decide on conditions and other details but not on the general permissibility as defined in the Government’s decision. Similarly, in the third stage of the decision process – the adoption of the railway plan – it was for the authorities and courts to decide only on the precise location of the railway, within the area designated by the Government’s decision. The Government had not been obliged to review its decision of 12 June 2003 on the permissibility of the railway project and the designation of the “corridor” in which the railway could be located. These issues could not be examined in the third stage of the decision process. The Supreme Administrative Court further stated that, if private interests were affected by the location of a railway project, judicial review could be obtained by petitioning the court in proceedings against the Government’s permissibility decision. The fact that the court, on 1 December 2004, had concluded that no individual petitioner could be considered to have locus standi in relation to the permissibility decision did not compel it to include in its current examination of the adoption of the railway plan the issues of permissibility of the project or its general location. 25. One judge dissented, considering that the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment contravened its decision of 1 December 2004. She noted, inter alia, that the adoption of a railway plan – as opposed to the construction permits – had direct consequences for the individual as it entailed a right for the railway company, under certain conditions, to expropriate land. Consequently, the court, in the instant case, should have examined all the objections presented by the appellants, including the claim that there were better alternative locations for the railway. According to the dissenting judge, a full judicial review had also been foreseen by the court in its earlier decision. 26. It appears from the parties’ observations in the case that at least ten of the applicants (including seven with houses or land situated outside the “corridor”) have received some form of compensation as a consequence of the railway construction, either for land requisitioned or for reduced residential value or market value. In one case, the change to noise-reducing windows was partly paid by the NRA. It is not clear whether the other applicants requested compensation. In the vicinity of some properties, whose owners have not received compensation, noise barriers have been erected in order to keep the noise from the railway below the applicable target values.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicants were born in 1968 and 1965 respectively and live in Pazardzhik. They are spouses. 7. On 20 August 2002 the first applicant, as a sole trader, took out a bank loan in order to purchase computers and to set up a computer club. The computer club was situated in a garage owned by the applicants. The second applicant assisted the first applicant in running the club and replaced him when he was absent. 8. When he started his business, the first applicant purchased five computers and several computer games, which he installed on the computers. His customers were able to use the computers for one Bulgarian lev (BGN) per hour. 9. As the first applicant was renting the computers to his clients, he was obliged to pay the necessary licensing fees to the distributors of the companies that owned the copyright of the products. However, in 2004 the first applicant failed to renew his contracts with the distributors. 10. On 3 April 2004 the police conducted a check on the applicants’ premises and warned the first applicant to abstain from illegally reproducing and distributing software. 11. On 9 November 2004 the director of the local sanitation department at the Ministry of Health ordered that the computer club be closed down for health reasons. 12. On 31 January 2005 Mr V.E., a manager of a company that distributed computer games, lodged a complaint with the district prosecutor in Pazardzhik. Mr V.E. stated that he had visited the applicants’ computer club on several occasions in the period between September and December 2004. He claimed to have noticed that despite their lack of a software license for reproduction and distribution, the applicants had installed certain types of games on the computers and were renting them to their clients. Mr V.E. mentioned specifically some of the games. He also claimed that the applicants had visited his office several times and had been aware of the requirements concerning reproduction and distribution of computer games. Lastly, he claimed that he had warned the applicants about the possible sanctions but had received only threats in response, especially from the second applicant. 13. In an order of 2 February 2005 the district prosecutor noted that a complaint had been lodged by Mr V.E. alleging that a crime had been committed under Article 172a § 2 of the Criminal Code of 1968 (see paragraph 32 below). He further observed that there was insufficient information to justify the institution of criminal proceedings. Therefore, relying on section 119(1)(3) of the Judiciary Act 1994 (see paragraph 26 below), he ordered the police to conduct an inquiry into the computer club in order to collect more information as to whether a crime had been committed under Article 172a § 2 of the Criminal Code 1968. The prosecutor stated that when examining the computer club, in the event that the police officers established that software was being used illegally, they should take measures to secure the necessary evidence, including an on‑the‑spot inspection and search and seizure of the computers. 14. In executing the prosecutor’s order, on 14 February 2005 the police authorities drew up an action plan. A police officer with technological expertise would compare the software installed on the computers with the purchased software. In the event that discrepancies were found, the police would conduct a search and seizure. The operation was planned for 21 February 2005. 15. At approximately 3.30 p.m. on 21 February 2005 the police, including a police investigator (дознател), arrived at the computer club. The applicants claimed that at that time the computer club had been closed to the public following the order of the Ministry of Health (see paragraph 11 above). They submitted that they had been at the club with some friends and that the cash till had been on because the second applicant had just finished a typewriting job and had been paid for it. 16. The police officers noted that the computers were running and that there were people in the club. They explained the aim of the inspection. It appears that the first applicant objected to the possible search and seizure, stating that the police did not have a judicial warrant, and asked for permission to contact a lawyer. The police apparently briefly pointed to the prosecutor’s order of 2 February 2005. The first applicant was allowed to contact his lawyer but, according to the applicants’ submissions, the police refused to wait for the lawyer’s arrival. 17. The police inspected the receipts from the club’s cash till and the daily sales record and concluded that the applicants had received money that day, most probably for providing commercial services. The police then inspected the applicants’ five computers and found that a number of computer games had been installed on them. The first applicant was invited to present documents, such as purchase invoices or any other evidence of his title to the games. As he failed to do so, the police seized the computers. The search-and-seizure operation ended at 6 p.m. 18. The search-and-seizure operation was carried out in the presence of two certifying witnesses. The police drew up a report containing an inventory of the seized items, namely the computers and their content, which consisted of computer programs, computer games and films. The report was signed without comment by the certifying witnesses. The first applicant refused to comment on the report or to sign it. 19. On 22 February 2005 the police investigator sent a letter to the district prosecutor informing the prosecutor of the results of the operation. She noted that following the search-and-seizure operation, criminal proceedings (a police investigation) had been instituted against the first applicant for illegal reproduction and distribution of software. 20. On the same day, at the request of the police investigator, a District Court judge approved the search-and-seizure operation on the basis of Article 135 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 (“the 1974 Code”). The judge described factually the course of the search-and-seizure operation and briefly cited the text of Article 135 § 2, stressing that there had been pressing circumstances and that an immediate search and seizure had been the only means by which the collection and preservation of the necessary evidence could be undertaken. The decision was sent to the police in order to be enclosed with the case file as an integral part of the search-and-seizure record. 21. On 23 February 2005 the first applicant lodged an application with the District Court, requesting the court not to approve the search‑and‑seizure record and arguing that a search and seizure had not been the only means by which the preservation of evidence could have been undertaken and that there had not been pressing circumstances. The first applicant also claimed that the computers contained letters as well as personal information about friends and clients. On 2 March 2005 the application was returned to the applicant as inadmissible as the search and seizure had already been approved by a court decision, which was not subject to appeal. 22. On 25 February 2005 both applicants submitted a request to the prosecutor for the return of the computers. They maintained that the computers contained private correspondence and personal information about themselves and their clients, and were also necessary for their other professional activities, namely providing typewriting services to the public. On 14 March 2005 the district prosecutor refused to return the computers. 23. The first applicant sought judicial review, arguing again that the computers contained personal information and correspondence with different State entities. In a decision of 15 April 2005 the Pazardzhik District Court upheld the prosecutor’s order. It held that the computers were the subject of an expert examination and were necessary for the investigation. It found irrelevant the assertion that the computers contained personal information. 24. In June 2005 the first applicant again sought the return of the computers. His request was rejected by the prosecutor and the court on 24 June and 15 July 2005 respectively on the grounds that the computers were necessary for the investigation. The applicant’s assertions that the computers contained personal information and were necessary for his wife’s business were not discussed. In October 2005 the applicant submitted the same request to the prosecutor, who again rejected it. The applicant submitted that the prosecutor had never forwarded his ensuing appeal against the rejection to the court. 25. On 8 November 2005 the first applicant was charged, inter alia, with the unlawful distribution of computer programs, computer games and films. In a final judgment of 22 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the first applicant’s conviction. It held that the first applicant had lawfully acquired title to the computer games but that he had been distributing them illegally by renting the games to his clients. It also held that the first applicant had been illegally reproducing computer programs and films. The court found that the first applicant’s conduct had led to significant damage. He was sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment suspended for three years, and ordered to pay a fine in the amount of BGN 4,000. The computers were confiscated.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently detained in the Cricova prison. 6. At the time of the events, the applicant was serving a ten-year sentence and was detained in the same detention facility. In August 2008 a murder was committed there and the applicant was one of the suspects. In December 2008 he was taken to the Chişinău Central police station for questioning. According to him, he was told to confess to the murder and was ill-treated after refusing to do so. On 21 January 2009 the applicant was taken to the police station detention facility again. Since he refused to make a confession, he was subjected to such acts of violence as being struck and slapped all over, and was detained in a very cold cell. As a result, he attempted to commit suicide by cutting the veins in his wrist. On 23 January 2009 he was taken to hospital for medical treatment where, according to the documents in the case file, he was seen by a doctor and given stitches and a bandage. After returning from hospital the ill-treatment continued and intensified. According to the applicant, his arms and feet were tied together behind his back and he was suspended on a metal bar placed on two chairs. He was left in that position until he fainted. As a result, his right hand became numb and stopped functioning. He was also beaten on his lower back with a plastic bottle full of water. As a result, he suffered kidney pain and had blood in his urine. The Government disputed the applicant’s allegations concerning ill-treatment. 7. On 28 January 2009 the applicant was seen by a medical assistant in the police station detention facility, who noted in his medical records that the applicant had complained of pain around his right bicep and that the tissue in that area was swollen. On 30 January 2009 the same medical assistant noted that the applicant had complained of numbness and tingling in his right arm. On 31 January 2009 the same medical assistant concluded that the applicant’s problem was a result of the self-inflicted laceration to his ligament. 8. In the meantime, on 28 January 2009 the applicant’s family learned of his situation and employed a lawyer. As a result of the lawyer’s involvement, on 30 January 2009 the applicant was transferred back to Cricova prison. 9. On 12 February 2009 the applicant’s state of health deteriorated and he was hospitalised in a prison hospital, where he was examined by a neurologist and diagnosed with severe radial neuropathy of the right arm (damage to the radial nerve running down the length of the arm, which controls movement in the triceps and is responsible for extending the wrist and fingers). He was released from hospital on 9 April 2009, but returned later on several occasions. 10. In the meantime, the applicant’s lawyer complained to the prosecutor’s office that his client had been subjected to ill-treatment, but on 31 July 2009 the complaint was dismissed as ill-founded. The investigating authorities found the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment to be ill-founded, in view of the absence of any physical evidence except for that resulting from his self-harm. In reaching this conclusion, the investigating authorities relied on the statements of the accused police officers, who denied ill-treating the applicant, and on the conclusion of the medical assistant from the police station detention facility (see paragraph 7 above). The findings of the doctors from the prison hospital (see paragraph 9 above) were not considered.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The applicant was born in 1931 and died on 10 November 2011. 10. For many years, the applicant had expressed the wish to end her life. She explained that she was becoming increasingly frail as time passed and was unwilling to continue suffering the decline of her physical and mental faculties. She decided that she wished to end her life by taking a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital. She contacted an assisted-suicide association – EXIT – for support, which replied that it would be difficult to find a medical practitioner who would be prepared to provide her with a medical prescription for the lethal drug. 11. On 20 October 2008 a psychiatrist, Dr T., submitted an expert opinion in which he observed that there was no doubt that the applicant was able to form her own judgment. From a psychiatric medical point of view, Dr T. did not have any objection to the applicant being prescribed a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital. However, he refrained from issuing the prescription himself on the ground that he did not want to confuse the roles of medical expert and treating physician. 12. By letters of 5 November and 1 December 2008 and 4 May 2009, the applicant’s representative submitted on her behalf a request to be given a prescription for sodium pentobarbital to three further medical practitioners, who all declined to issue the requested prescription. 13. On 16 December 2008 the applicant submitted a request to the Health Board of the Canton of Zurich to be provided with 15 grams of sodium pentobarbital in order for her to commit suicide. On 29 April 2009 the Health Board rejected the applicant’s request. 14. On 29 May 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich. On 22 October 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the appeal. It considered, in particular, that the prerequisite of a medical prescription for obtaining a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital was in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention. The requirement to obtain a medical prescription served the aim of preventing premature decisions and guaranteed that the intended action was medically justified. It further ensured that the decision was based on a deliberate exercise of the free will of the person concerned. The Administrative Court observed that Dr T., in his expert opinion, had not considered whether the applicant was suffering from any illness which would justify the assumption that the end of her life was near. The wish to die taken on its own, even if it was well considered, was not sufficient to justify the issuing of a medical prescription. Accordingly, the content of the case file did not demonstrate that the necessary prerequisites for issuing a medical prescription had been fulfilled in the instant case. There was therefore a need for further medical examination. Under these circumstances, the Administrative Court considered that there was no sufficient reason to dispense the applicant from the necessity of undergoing a thorough medical examination and of obtaining a medical prescription. 15. On 12 April 2010 the Federal Supreme Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant. It observed, inter alia, that the applicant undisputedly did not fulfil the prerequisites laid down in the medical-ethical guidelines on the care of patients at the end of life adopted by the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences, as she was not suffering from a terminal illness, but had expressed a wish to die because of her advanced age and increasing frailty. Even though the Federal Supreme Court had previously considered that the issuing of a medical prescription for sodium pentobarbital to a person suffering from an incurable, persistent and serious psychological illness did not necessarily amount to a violation of a doctor’s professional duties, this exception had to be handled with the “utmost restraint” and did not enjoin the medical profession or the State to provide the applicant with the requested dose of sodium pentobarbital to put an end to her life. The Federal Supreme Court further noted that the issuing of the requested substance required a thorough medical examination and, with respect to the persistence of the wish to die, long-term medical supervision by a specialist practitioner who was prepared to issue the necessary prescription. This requirement could not be circumvented by the applicant’s request for an exemption from the necessity of obtaining a medical prescription. 16. On 10 November 2010 counsel for the applicant lodged an application with the Court. 17. On 24 October 2011 the applicant obtained a medical prescription for 15 grams of sodium pentobarbital signed by a medical practitioner, Dr U. On 10 November 2011 she ended her life by imbibing the prescribed substance. According to a police report dated 14 November 2011, no relatives of the deceased could be identified. The report concluded that the applicant had committed suicide with the assistance of EXIT and that no third person was found to be criminally liable in this context. 18. The Court was not made aware of the applicant’s death until 7 January 2014 (see paragraph 19 below).

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6. The applicants worked for a private company (“the company”). The company is one of the main Internet service providers in the city of Varna; it operated out of at least two offices in Varna, both of which were located on the same street. The first applicant was the company’s manager; the second, third and fourth applicants were employees of the company; the fifth applicant was a freelance expert providing services to the company at the time of the events. 7. On 16 June 2008 the Varna District Public Prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings (досъдебно производство) against a person unknown, suspected of disseminating materials in violation of intellectual property laws by using the company’s servers during the period January to May 2008 and thus committing a continuous offence as defined in Article 172a (1) of the Criminal Code. The proceedings were not directed at anyone specifically at the company. The prosecutor’s order for opening criminal proceedings comprised the following instructions: that the facts be established; that unlicensed software be identified and seized, and a forensic examination be carried out in respect of it; that the results be discussed with the prosecutor without delay; and that the investigation be carried out by officers of the Central Service for Combating Organised Crime (CSCOC). 8. The following facts are undisputed between the parties. 9. Following the prosecutor’s order of 16 June 2008, a special police operation was carried out on 18 June 2008 in two of the company’s offices located in the same street in Varna. The operation was aimed at the search and seizure of illegal software and was carried out pursuant to the instructions of the supervising prosecutor. Ya.K., a CSCOC officer and the head of the operation, had given the operational instructions to the officers involved shortly before the operation began. Those instructions were to enter the company’s premises as quickly as possible, to overpower all individuals found there in order to prevent them from interfering with any electronic evidence, and to seize the computer equipment found in the offices. A district court judge confirmed the validity of the search‑and‑seizure operation within 24 hours of its having taken place. A number of computers and black boxes, the latter referred to in the search‑and-seizure reports as “computer systems”, as well as one folder of paper documents, were seized in the presence of certifying witnesses during the operation. The manager of the company, Anzhelo Angelov Georgiev, was not present in the company’s offices when the operation took place. The second applicant was working in the first company office at the time of the operation and the third, fourth and fifth applicants were present in the second company office. 10. The parties disagree in particular in respect of whether the force used by some of the CSCOC officers during the above-mentioned operation had been provoked by the applicants and therefore whether it had been excessive or absolutely necessary in the circumstances. 11. The applicants, in their complaints to the prosecutor on 19 June 2008 about having been ill-treated during the operation the previous day, described the conduct of the operation as follows. 12. Anzhelo Angelov Georgiev, the first applicant, submitted that on 18 June 2008 CSCOC officers barged into two offices of the company, having broken the entrance doors to one of the offices. Then, he claimed, they had broken the cameras in the first office, ordered the employees found there, including the second applicant, to lie on the ground and hit them with electroshock batons, as well as kicked them in the chest and the head despite the absence of any resistance or provocation. The first applicant also claimed that a similar situation had arisen in the second company office. Copies of medical certificates, evidencing injuries allegedly sustained by several employees during those events, were enclosed with the complaint. 13. Kameliya Ivanova Dekova, the second applicant, submitted that at around 4.00 p.m. on 18 June 2008 masked armed men had cut the lock of the entrance door to the company’s first office where she was working, saying they were police. Then, she claimed, they had made her lie on the ground and had kicked her in the chest and head, as well as applied electroshock discharges from a baton-like device to her body before handcuffing her. She had not resisted in any way and had done nothing to provoke such treatment. One of the masked men had been shouting threats and insults at her and her colleagues present in the office, including threatening to shoot a firearm. 14. Georgi Mirchev Kosev, the third applicant, submitted in particular that he had heard loud bangs on the entrance door of the company’s second office at about 4.30 p.m. on 18 June 2008. After a colleague had opened the door, men had rushed in, pushed and shoved him and then handcuffed him to the window grill. While he was still attached to the grill, they had applied electroshock discharges from a baton to his abdominal area. 15. Nikolay Angelov Dragnev, the fourth applicant, submitted that at around 4.30 p.m. on 18 June 2008 several armed masked men had broken into the company’s second office, where he was at the time. Although he had not resisted in any way, they had hit him in the face and his lip had started bleeding. They had handcuffed his arms behind his back and then made him stay on his knees for an hour during which time they had continuously insulted him. 16. Pavel Yonkov Tsekov, the fifth applicant, submitted that at about 4.30 p.m. on 18 June 2008, while he had been working in the company’s second office together with seven other colleagues, he had heard strong bangs on the door and shouts “Open! Police!”. As soon as a colleague of his had opened the door, several men had thrown Mr Tsekov to the ground, then had handcuffed his arms behind his back and dragged him outside. Next they had made him remain crouching with his hands cuffed behind his back for around an hour. They had asked no questions of him or his colleagues nor asked them to produce their identity documents; instead, they had ordered the employees in the office to keep quiet. 17. Some of the twelve employees, including the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants, who were heard during the inquiry on 2 and 3 July 2008 following the applicants’ complaints (see paragraph 24 below), stated that police officers had cut open the entrance door to the first of the company’s offices in which they had been working on the afternoon of 18 June 2008. Following that the officers had hit them in the face, kicked them, stepped with a boot on their heads, applied electroshock discharges on them which had caused them very strong pain and a feeling of paralysis, insulted them and continuously shouted at them to keep silent. The officers had been wearing what some employees described as “helmets” and “hoods” on their heads. They had been dressed in black police uniforms and had been armed with machine guns. Once the masked officers had noticed that there were cameras on the premises, they had signaled this to each other and stopped hitting the employees. Shortly afterwards civilian police officers had entered the office premises; none of the civilian officers had ill‑treated any of the employees. 18. The Government submitted to the Court statements of thirteen police officers who had taken part in the operation. The statements were given to the prosecution on 7 July 2008, 27 August 2008, 2 September 2008 and 18 September 2008, as part of a preliminary inquiry carried out into the allegations of the company’s employees that they had been ill-treated by the police at the time of the operation. The Government also submitted to the Court the statements of twelve employees of the company given to the prosecution during the same inquiry (see paragraph 17 above). 19. Officers from the CSCOC who had participated in the operation were heard during the inquiry in August and September 2008 in Sofia following instructions of the Varna prosecutors. The CSCOC officers submitted that, prior to the operation they had received information from operative police sources and various media publications, that the company was connected to organised criminal groups. Given that the employees had refused to open the door to one of the offices which had been disguised as a family apartment, masked police officers had had to cut it open in order to prevent the destruction of evidence. The other office had been opened from inside by employees. CSCOC officers (it was not specified who or how many) had entered through the window into yet a third “hidden” office, thus “taking by surprise an employee found there who was attempting to destroy evidence”; they had handcuffed that employee, and then an unspecified person had opened the door to that office with a key. During the operation the company’s employees had refused to comply with the police orders and had actively disobeyed the officers, thus obstructing the operation. The officers had not used electroshock on any employee. They had used handcuffs on individual members of staff who had refused to open the entrance door or to move away from their computer stations and who had continued to erase data from the computers instead. The wife of the company’s manager had behaved arrogantly towards the officers, insulting and threatening them with revenge, and had ordered the employees to continue with their work. 20. Officers of the Varna Regional Police Directorate (“Областна Дирекция на Полицията Варна” or “VRPD”) who were heard during the inquiry in July 2008 in Varna submitted that they had been called in to assist their colleagues from the CSCOC in an operation to find company servers containing unlicensed software, films and music. None of the VRPD officers had been masked. They had not been involved in the opening of the entrance doors to the company’s offices as that had been done by masked officers from the CSCOC. They had entered the office premises after the doors had been opened. They had seen some masked officers on the company premises but had not seen what they had done. Some of them had heard calls of “Open! Police!” during a period of about 10 to 15 minutes and after that the sound of an electric grinder. They had not witnessed any physical force being used against any employee. Some of the VRPD officers had seen in the first office several women – none of whom bore any sign of injury – sitting on chairs guarded by two masked officers; in the entrance hall leading to the second office they had seen several company employees, some wearing handcuffs. While the VRPD officers had been waiting for the entrance doors to the offices to be opened, they had thought it likely that the company employees would delete most if not all of the information sought to be collected during the operation. All the employees had been calm and, at times, the officers had let them smoke outside the building before asking them to return inside to wait until the conclusion of the search-and-seizure operation. After officers had brought in another woman called A.G., acting as the manager of the company, ten computer systems were seized in her presence and in the presence of several certifying witnesses. The VRPD officers had left at around 8 p.m. 21. On 19 June 2008, the day after the police operation, at their request, a forensic expert examined Ms Dekova, Mr Kosev and Mr Tsekov, respectively the second, third and fifth applicants. 22. According to the medical reports, Ms Dekova had a swollen right upper eyelid and a swelling and a cut next to her right eyebrow, a bruise and an abrasion in her right armpit, four reddish-brown burns on and below her right shoulder blade and bruises on her right thigh and arm. The conclusion of the medical expert was that the burns on her back were of first to second degree and it was plausible that they had been sustained from not less than four strikes with an electroshock baton at the time and in the circumstances described by the applicant. Mr Kosev had a jaw injury, injuries to both arms, an injury and an open wound in the abdominal area and six reddish strips on his abdomen. Mr Tsekov had three long bruises around his left armpit which could have been the result of pressure applied with non-sharp, hard objects, possibly squeezing by hands. The medical expert concluded that the bruises and injuries could have been caused by blows with or against a blunt object, and that the injuries described above had caused the second, third and fifth applicant pain and suffering, and the second applicant also temporary non-life-threatening health disorder. 23. On 19 June 2008 the applicants, and five other individuals, complained to the prosecutor, in particular, that masked men had broken into two of the company’s offices the previous day and had used violence towards them, as well as shouting and insulting. Because the officers had been masked, they could not identify them. Civilian officers who had entered the office premises in order to search and seize computer equipment after the masked men had broken in had not mistreated the company employees. The prosecutor took the applicants’ statements which are summarised in paragraphs 12 to 16 above. They submitted the medical certificates drawn up on the same day (see paragraph 21 and 22 above). 24. A preliminary inquiry into the above complaints was opened the day after the operation took place. During the months of July, August and September 2008, investigators took statements from thirteen officers who had participated in the operation and twelve staff members of the company who had been present during the operation. The police statements are summarised in paragraphs 19 and 20 above and the employees’ statements are summarized in paragraph 17 above. The Government did not submit, and the documents in the file do not show, that any other investigative steps, apart from the questioning of several police officers and the company’s employees, were carried out. 25. The questions put to the officers during the inquiry were: 1) whether during the operation any employee had disobeyed or showed manifest lack of cooperation; 2) whether any of the masked officers had used electroshock batons against any employee and, if yes, why; 3) who among the officers (masked or not) had used physical force and auxiliary means for restraint (помощни средства), against whom of the employees, in which of the company’s offices and why; 4) officers from which police department (specialised in breaking into premises or in arresting individuals) had taken part in the operation; and 5) whether the entrance doors to the company’s offices had been opened voluntarily or whether they had to be forced open. 26. All the officers heard during the inquiry stated that they had learned about the police operation of 18 June 2008 and had been called to assist with it earlier on the same day; none of them had used force against the applicants, apart from handcuffing individuals who had disobeyed the officers’ orders; no electroshock discharges had been applied to anyone. Not all police officers answered all questions asked as part of the inquiry. 27. The inquiry ended with a decision of the Varna Regional Military Prosecutor of 7 October 2008 not to institute criminal proceedings, finding that the officers involved in the operation had not exceeded the prerogatives vested in them by law. Upon appeal by the applicants, on 24 November 2008 the Varna Appellate Military Prosecutor returned the case with instructions that further acts be carried out (see paragraph 38 below, third sentence). More specifically, he observed that the file did not contain any documents showing that criminal proceedings had been opened against the applicants. Likewise, there was no information in the file showing that a search-and-seizure operation had been carried out and that it had been authorised by a judge. No information on file showed either that evidence had actually been found on the premises searched, or that there had been reasonable suspicion that evidence could have been found there. The prosecutor held that the scant assertions of several police officers who had been heard during the preliminary inquiry were not sufficient to establish the circumstances as recorded in the refusal to open criminal proceedings of 7 October 2008. Consequently, additional investigative acts had to be carried out. The higher prosecutor asked, in particular, that copies be collected of the orders for opening criminal proceedings on suspicion of violating intellectual property laws and for bringing charges on those grounds, as well as records of the search-and-seizure operation and “other documents of importance for the inquiry”. It is unclear whether any investigative steps were taken thereafter. 28. On 13 March 2009 the Varna District Public Prosecutor, to whom the file was sent for competence reasons following a legislative amendment, refused to open criminal proceedings (see paragraph 37 below) against the police officers. She found that a special police operation aimed at gaining access to the offices of the company and seizing unlicensed software had been carried out on 18 June 2008. The initial information available had been that the company had connections with organised criminal groups and that its main activity was the collecting and disseminating of unlicensed software. Officers from CSCOC had been in charge of the operation; masked officers from CSCOC Sector “Operational Intervention” (сектор “Оперативна реализация”) and officers from different units of the Varna Regional Police Directorate, had taken part in the operation. Following a preparatory briefing session, at around 3.30 in the afternoon the officers had tried to enter the office premises of the company. Someone on the inside had locked the front door; following this, the company’s employees had gone to their computers and started deleting data sought by the police. The employees had not complied with several orders by the police officers to open the doors. Acting upon the instructions to enter the company’s premises rapidly and to establish full control over all individuals there without giving them the opportunity to erase data or to obstruct the seizure of computers, the CSCOC officers had cut the entrance door lock to the building, thus breaking into the premises. They had then ordered all the individuals found there to lie on the floor and refrain from touching the computer equipment. However, the company’s employees had disobeyed the orders and, using different pretexts, had remained instead in front of their work stations, acting so as to delete information from the company’s computers. The officers had used physical force, electroshock batons and handcuffs in respect of some of the employees to overcome their resistance and prevent them from touching the computers located on the premises. During the operation, some employees had been knocked over. Those findings had been corroborated by the statements of all persons, civilians and police officers, collected during the inquiry, as well as by documents submitted by the Varna Regional Police Directorate. The prosecutor further found, on the basis of medical reports, that some complainants (without naming them) had sustained injuries during the operation and that they could not identify the officers who had caused the injuries as the latter had been wearing masks. The prosecutor concluded that it had been established unequivocally during the inquiry that the injuries sustained by the civilians during the police operation of 18 June 2008 had been the result of the use of force and auxiliary means for restraint by police officers in order to overcome the complainants’ resistance and to prevent them from destroying crucial evidence for the ongoing criminal proceedings. The officers had not exceeded their statutory right under section 72 of the Ministry of Interior Act to use force, as they had been faced with refusals to obey their orders. The material collected during the inquiry had shown that the search‑and‑seizure operation had been carried out in accordance with the instructions of the supervising prosecutor and had been approved by a judge. The prosecutor concluded that the police officers involved had not committed a criminal offence. 29. Following an appeal by the applicants and one of the other complainants, on 8 April 2009 the Varna Regional Public Prosecutor (“Окръжна Прокуратура Варна”) upheld the lower prosecutor’s decision. He held, in particular, that the officers had used force for the purposes of gathering physical evidence and in compliance with the applicable legislation.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Arkhangelsk. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 19 February 2001 the applicant brought a court action against the Social Security Fund of the Russian Federation (Фонд социального страхования Российской Федерации) for compensation of health damage. 8. On 4 April 2001 her claim was dismissed by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk. The decision was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for a fresh examination to the same court. 9. On 3 June 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the Social Security Fund (i) to calculate the amount of the lump-sum compensation for the period from 1 January 2000 to May 2002 and of the monthly compensation which should be paid from 1 June 2002, (ii) to pay these amounts to the applicant, and (iii) to index-link the monthly payments in future in accordance with national law. 10. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 13 June 2002. 11. The applicant states that no lump-sum compensation was paid to her. 12. On 26 August 2002 the Social Security Fund calculated the monthly payments due to the applicant as of 15 November 2001. 13. On 18 December 2002 the President of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court lodged with the Presidium of that court an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 3 June 2002. He also suspended the execution of the judgment pending the supervisory review proceedings. 14. On the same date the Arkhangelsk Regional Court informed the applicant that the Presidium would examine her case on 25 December 2002. 15. On 25 December 2002 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 3 June 2002 stating that the first instance court had incorrectly applied domestic law: the lump-sum compensation should have been calculated from 15 November 2001 and not 1 January 2000. The case was remitted for a fresh examination to the first instance court. 16. On 25 June 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. 17. On 28 July 2003 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. At the material time the applicants were employed by the CJSC “AeroSvit Airlines” (“AeroSvit”) as aircraft cabin crew. 7. As confirmed, in particular, by the minutes of the trade union’s constituent assembly of 2 July 2003, all the applicants were members of the company’s trade union. Mr Tymoshenko was its chairman. 8. On 16 February 2011 the National Mediation and Reconciliation Service (“the NMRS”) registered a collective labour dispute between the employees and the management of AeroSvit. The employees’ demands concerned, in particular, the following issues: - repairs to the aircraft electronic catering and air-conditioning equipment; - enhancing the safety of on-flight technical processes; - salary payments to be made no later than three days before a period of leave; - full and timely salary payments twice per month; - a 3% pay rise and recalculation of salaries for 2009 and 2010; - salary payment on the basis of the exchange rate of the US dollar and the Ukrainian hryvnia as established by the National Bank of Ukraine, with salaries to be recalculated from 2008; - recalculation of long-service bonuses; - ensuring transportation of aircraft cabin crew to and from the airport; - establishing a USD 50 per diem allowance for all foreign flights; - uniform cleaning and ironing to be at the employer’s expense; - allocation of at least 0.3% of the salary budget for cultural and sporting events; - awarding employees a bonus of 3.23% from the 2008 profits; and - inflation adjustment of salaries if payment was delayed, with effect from December 2008. 9. On 16 March and 12 April 2011 the NMRS deregistered some of the employees’ demands, noting that they had been resolved, with reference to decisions of the reconciliation commissions of 28 February, 10 and 30 March 2011. 10. On 27 May 2011 the NMRS Labour Arbitration Court delivered its decision on the employees’ remaining demands, following a hearing in which representatives of both parties participated. It found most of the demands to be legitimate and directed the employer to comply with them. 11. In the absence of any compliance measures, AeroSvit cabin crew, including the applicants, decided to embark on industrial action. 12. On 9 September 2011 the general meeting of AeroSvit employees, seeking resolution of the labour dispute, announced a strike of 150 aircraft cabin crew members. The strike was due to start on 28 September 2011 and continue until the employees’ demands were fully met. The announcement specified that all foreign flights which began prior to the beginning of the strike would be completed. The meeting appointed a strike committee of six persons (including all of the applicants except Mr Pushnyak, who, however, attended the meeting and voted in favour of the strike). The committee was vested with the following powers: to conduct negotiations on behalf of the employees with the company’s management and State authorities; to draw attention to the strike in the mass media; to receive information from the company’s management on compliance with the employees’ requirements; to initiate and participate in a reconciliation commission; to organise and conduct meetings and pickets in support of the demands put forward; to sign agreements with the owner or an authorised representative on resolution of the labour dispute; and to consult the NMRS. 13. By 12 September 2011 the strike committee had notified the following authorities about the decision to hold a strike: the employer, the NMRS, the Infrastructure Ministry, the State Aviation Administration, the Social Policy Ministry, the State Labour Inspection, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, as well as a number of other institutions and organisations. 14. On 19 September 2011 the management of AeroSvit lodged a claim with the Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Darnytskyy Court”) against the flight attendants’ trade union, seeking to have the strike declared unlawful. 15. On 26 September 2011 the Darnytskyy Court held the first hearing on the case. Another hearing was scheduled for the morning of 28 September 2011. 16. The planned hearing did not take place for reasons unknown to the applicants. They later discovered that the judge had been on sick leave. 17. On 28 September 2011 the management of AeroSvit Airlines brought another claim, this time before the Boryspil City Court (“the Boryspil Court”) and against the strike committee, seeking to have the strike declared unlawful. 18. On 29 September 2011 the Boryspil Court, in written proceedings, issued an injunction prohibiting the strike committee from holding the strike pending adjudication of the employer’s claim. 19. On the same day AeroSvit’s management handed over a copy of the injunction to the trade union’s representatives. 20. On 30 September 2011 the company’s management withdrew its earlier claim from the Darnytskyy Court. 21. On 4 October 2011 the trade union challenged the Boryspil Court’s injunction of 29 September 2011 before the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”). It submitted, in particular, that the strike committee could not be a respondent in proceedings, since it was neither an individual nor a legal entity. Nor was it empowered to act in courts on behalf of the employees who had decided to go on strike. 22. On 5 October 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed the aforementioned appeal. 23. On 6 October 2011 the Boryspil Court found that the strike would be unlawful and banned it. The court relied on section 18 of the Transport Act, which prohibited strikes at transport enterprises if they affected passenger carriage. It noted that AeroSvit was an important passenger carrier operating over eighty international routes to thirty-three counties. Furthermore, given that one of the major tasks of the aircraft cabin crew was to ensure the safety of passengers, the court considered applicable section 24 of the Resolution of Labour Disputes Act, which prohibited strikes if they were likely to endanger human life or health. It also made a general reference to Article 44 of the Constitution. 24. The trade union appealed. It reiterated the arguments of its earlier appeal of 4 October 2011 concerning the standing of the strike committee. It also argued that the first-instance court had wrongly applied the Transport Act, when it should instead have applied the Resolution of Labour Disputes Act. 25. On 22 November and 19 December 2011 respectively the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters upheld the judgment of 6 October 2011. 26. On 20 January 2012 the Specialised Court’s final ruling was served on the strike committee. 27. Article 44 reads as follows: “Employees have the right to strike in order to protect their economic and social interests. The procedure for exercising the right to strike shall be established by law, taking into account the need to ensure national security, the protection of health, and the rights and freedoms of other persons. No one shall be forced to participate or to not participate in a strike. A strike may only be prohibited on the basis of law.” 28. The pertinent provisions are the following: Section 3. Parties to a collective labour dispute “The parties to a collective labour dispute shall be: - at an occupational level – employees (certain categories of employees) ... or a trade union, or another organisation authorised by employees [to represent their interests] and the owner of an enterprise ... or [the employer’s] representative ... The body authorised by employees to represent [their interests] shall be the only authorised representative of the employees during the period such a dispute exists...” Section 17. Strike “A strike is a temporary, collective and voluntary cessation of work by employees (non-appearance at work, breach of labour duties) ... with the aim of resolving a collective labour dispute. Strike action shall be an extreme means of resolving a collective labour dispute (when all other possibilities [for such resolution] have been exhausted) if [the employer] refuses to allow the claims of employees or of a body authorised by them, or of a trade union, or of an association of trade unions or of a body authorised by them.” Section 18. The right to strike “Pursuant to Article 44 of the Constitution of Ukraine, employees have the right to strike in order to protect their economic and social interests. The procedure for exercising the right to strike is established by this Act. A strike may be commenced if conciliatory procedures have not led to the settlement of a collective labour dispute or if [the employer] avoids conciliatory procedures or does not comply with an agreement reached in the course of resolution of a collective labour dispute...” Section 24. Cases in which it is prohibited to strike “Striking shall be prohibited if the cessation of work by employees endangers human life or health or the environment, or if it hinders the prevention of a natural disaster, an accident, a catastrophe, an epidemic or an epizootic outbreak, or if it hampers rectification of their consequences. Employees (with the exception of technical and maintenance personnel) of prosecution authorities, courts, military forces, state authorities, security and law-enforcement bodies shall be banned from striking...” PART V. FINAL PROVISIONS. “...3. Until other laws and by-laws are brought into compliance with this Act, they shall apply so far as they do not contradict it. 4. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine shall submit proposals for bringing other laws and by-laws into compliance with this Act within three months...” 29. Section 18 “Strikes at transport enterprises” provides: “Cessation of work (strike) at transport enterprises may take place if the enterprise’s management fails to comply with tariff agreements, except in cases where passenger transportation or maintenance of a continuous production cycle are concerned, and also where a strike would endanger human life or health.” 30. The above provision has not been amended since the Act entered in force in 1994. Some proposed amendments were drafted in 2001 following recommendations by the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, but with no result (see paragraphs 38-40 below). Furthermore, on 26 August 2010 a draft law “On amendments to section 18 of the Transport Act with a view to bringing it into conformity with the Constitution of Ukraine and the Resolution of Labour Disputes (Conflicts) Act” was registered in the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian Parliament). The final version of the draft proposed repealing section 18 altogether. On 15 June 2011 the Parliamentary Committee for Transport and Communication recommended that Parliament reject the draft text, and referred to the Cabinet of Ministers’ position that it would destabilise the transport sector and be harmful to the social and economic interests of the State. In consequence, the draft text was rejected. 31. On 15 January 2013 the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights issued a press release with the following content: Ms Valeriya Lutkovska: “The right of transport employees to strike must be settled on the legislative level” “The Ukrainian Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Valeriya Lutkovska, has sent a letter to Mr Mykola Azarov, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, concerning protection of the constitutional right to strike of transport employees. Representatives of the All-Ukrainian Trade Union of Pilots and also a trade union of stewards in an airline company have repeatedly applied to the Ombudsman concerning the unconstitutionality of the provisions of the Ukrainian Transport Act and violation of their legitimate rights. Monitoring by the Commissioner has revealed that inadequate regulation of this issue has in fact made it impossible to protect the rights of transport employees, and has led to ambiguous interpretation of certain provisions of the law... In addition, [this lack of regulation] genuinely raises the possibility of mass violations of employment law by employers, and, at the same time, unplanned (unexpected) instances of unavailability of transportation services, etc. The working group created by the Commissioner for Human Rights, with participation by representatives from the Ministry of Social Policy, the Ministry of Infrastructure, the Ministry of Economic Development and the National Service for Mediation and Reconciliation, and delegates from the joint representative bodies of employers and trade unions, drew up the draft Law of Ukraine “On amendments to certain legislative acts of Ukraine concerning guarantees for exercising the constitutional right to strike”. It was proposed that section 18 of the Ukrainian Transport Act be worded as follows: “Strikes at transport enterprises shall take place in accordance with the legislation on the resolution of collective labour disputes (conflicts)”. The words “[or] national security” were added to section 24 (1) of the Ukrainian Law “On the resolution of collective labour disputes (conflicts)” immediately after the words “human health”. According to the Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Valeriya Lutkovska, the Ministry of Social Policy, the Ministry of Infrastructure, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Secretariat of the Council of National Security and Defence and the trade-union representatives of trade unions agreed to the draft law without observations. Taking into consideration the importance of resolving this issue on the legislative level, the Ombudsman Ms Valeriya Lutkovska...submitted for the Government’s consideration the draft law thus drawn up, for subsequent submission to the Verkhovna Rada. The Prime Minister, Mr Mykola Azarov, instructed the heads of the Ministries of Infrastructure, Social Policy, Economic Development, Finance and Justice to examine the draft of the above-mentioned law and to introduce the agreed proposals to it. The Commissioner for Human Rights hopes that the draft law will soon be submitted for consideration by Parliament.” 32. Article 8 § 1 of the Covenant reads as follows: “1. The States Parties to the present Convention undertake to ensure: (a) The right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; (b) The right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right of the latter to form or join international trade union organisations; (c) The right of trade unions to function freely subject to no limitations other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; (d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country.” 33. The pertinent principles of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) are summarised in its publication “ILO Principles Concerning the Right to Strike”, first published in the International Labour Review, Vol. 137 (1998), No. 4, with a further edition in 2000. The relevant extracts read as follows: 1. General issuesThe basic principle of the right to strike “... Over the years, in line with this principle, the Committee on Freedom of Association has recognized that strike action is a right and not simply a social act, and has also: 1. made it clear it is a right which workers and their organizations (trade unions, federations and confederations) are entitled to enjoy...; 2. reduced the number of categories of workers who may be deprived of this right, as well as the legal restrictions on its exercise, which should not be excessive; 3. linked the exercise of the right to strike to the objective of promoting and defending the economic and social interests of workers...; 4. stated that the legitimate exercise of the right to strike should not entail prejudicial penalties of any sort, which would imply acts of anti-union discrimination. These views expressed by the Committee on Freedom of Association coincide in substance with those of the Committee of Experts...” 3. Workers who enjoy the right to strike and those who are excluded “... the Committee has chosen to recognize a general right to strike, with the sole possible exceptions being those which may be imposed for public servants and workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term. Obviously, the Committee on Freedom of Association also accepts the prohibition of strikes in the event of an acute national emergency (ILO, 1996d, para. 527)...” Essential services in the strict sense of the term “Over time, the supervisory bodies of the ILO have brought greater precision to the concept of essential services in the strict sense of the term (for which strike action may be prohibited). In 1983, the Committee of Experts defined such services as those “the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population” (ILO, 1983b, para. 214). This definition was adopted by the Committee on Freedom of Association shortly afterwards. Clearly, what is meant by essential services in the strict sense of the term “depends to a large extent on the particular circumstances prevailing in a country”; likewise, there can be no doubt that “a non-essential service may become essential if a strike lasts beyond a certain time or extends beyond a certain scope, thus endangering the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population” (ILO, 1996d, para. 541). The Committee on Freedom of Association has none the less given its opinion in a general manner on the essential or non-essential nature of a series of specific services. Thus, the Committee has considered to be essential services in the strict sense, where the right to strike may be subject to major restrictions or even prohibitions, to be: the hospital sector; electricity services; water supply services; the telephone service; air traffic control (ibid., para. 544). In contrast, the Committee has considered that, in general the following do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, and therefore the prohibition to strike does not pertain (ibid., para 545): ... transport generally; ... aircraft repairs.. These few examples do not represent an exhaustive list of essential services. The Committee has not mentioned more services because its opinion is dependent on the nature of the specific situations and on the context which it has to examine and because complaints are rarely submitted regarding the prohibition of strikes in essential services...” Terminological clarification regarding the concept of essential service and minimum service “... When the Committee of Experts uses the expression “essential services” it refers only to essential services in the strict sense of the term (i.e. those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), in which restrictions or even a prohibition may be justified, accompanied, however, by compensatory guarantees. Nevertheless, a “minimum service” “would be appropriate in situations in which a substantial restriction or total prohibition of strike action would not appear to be justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, one might consider ensuring that users’ basic needs are met and that facilities operate safely or without interruption” (ibid., para. 162) ...” 34. In the General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work in the light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation (International Labour Conference, 101st session, 2012), the ILO Committee of Experts on the Implementation of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) indicated that the air transport should be excluded from “essential services” and that the right to strike of workers employed in that sector should be recognised. 35. On 23 February 1999 the Independent Trade Union of Workers of the Illichivsk Maritime Commercial Port lodged a complaint with the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association against the Government of Ukraine, alleging violations of trade union rights, including the right to strike. The Government’s reply was that, under the Transport Act, strikes were prohibited in continuously operating transport enterprises. 36. In its Report No. 318 of November 1999 (Report in which the committee requests to be informed of development), the Committee stated: “514. In cases concerning violations of the right to strike, the Committee has always recognized the right to strike of workers and their organizations as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests. It has also considered that the conditions that have to be fulfilled under the law in order to render a strike lawful should be reasonable and in any event not such as to place a substantial limitation on the means of action open to trade union organizations. ... The Committee has also emphasized that while the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, provided that the workers are given appropriate guarantees, port activities generally do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, although they are an important public service in which a minimum service could be required in case of a strike. ... The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to amend section 18 of the Transport Act to ensure that it cannot be construed as prohibiting strikes in ports. ... 516. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations: ... (d) As regards the court rulings that the strike planned for 7 September 1998 was illegal, the Committee, emphasizing that the ports do not constitute essential services in which strikes might be prohibited, although they are important public services in which a minimum service might be required in the event of a strike, requests the Government to amend section 18 of the Transport Act in order to ensure that it cannot be construed as allowing the prohibition of strikes in ports.” 37. Subsequently, the Committee issued several reports on the effect given to its recommendations. 38. In particular, in November 2001 it issued Report No. 323, in which it referred to the Government’s communication of August 2001 stating that the Ministry of Transport was preparing a new transport bill, which would include the following provisions: “Voluntary cessation of work (strike) in transport undertakings may be initiated in accordance with the procedure established under relevant legislation. Except in cases where such cessation of work would endanger the life and health of individuals or pose an environmental threat, hinder the prevention of natural disasters, accidents or major incidents, epidemic or epizootic outbreaks, or impede efforts to deal with the consequences of such events.” 39. The Committee “note[d] with interest” the draft amendment in respect of section 18 of the Transport Act concerning strike action and requested the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this respect. 40. The examination of the case by the Committee was, however, completed without any such progress being reported (see also paragraph 30 above concerning further drafting efforts). 41. The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has published its conclusions in a number of other transport cases in which it was found that restrictions on the right to strike are not in conformity with the ILO standards. 42. In particular, the relevant extracts from its 362nd Report (312th Session, Geneva, November 2011) read as follows: - Case No 2841 (France): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments: “1041. The Committee recalls that, in the airport sector, only air traffic control can be regarded as an essential service justifying restrictions on the right to strike. Neither the distribution of fuel to ensure that flights continue to operate, nor transport per se, can be therefore considered essential services in the strictest sense of the term. Moreover, economic consideration should not be invoked as a justification for restrictions on the right to strike. However, the Committee has, in the past, had cause to consider that when a service that is not essential in the strict sense of the term but is part of a very important sector in the country – as could be said of passenger and goods transport – is brought to a standstill, measures to guarantee a minimum service may be justified. Such a service could also be a potential alternative solution in situations in which a substantial restriction or total prohibition of strike action would not appear to be justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, one might consider ensuring that users’ basic needs are met or facilities operate safely or without interruption.” - Case No 2838 (Greece): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments: “1076. ...the transportation of passengers and commercial goods is not an essential service in the strict sense of the term; however, this is a public service of primary importance where the requirement of a minimum service in the event of a strike can be justified... In general, the determination of minimum services and the minimum number of workers providing them should involve not only the public authorities, but also the relevant employers’ and workers’ organizations. This not only allows a careful exchange of viewpoints on what in a given situation can be considered to be the minimum services that are strictly necessary, but also contributes to guaranteeing that the scope of the minimum service does not result in the strike becoming ineffective in practice because of its limited impact, and to dissipating possible impressions in the trade union organizations that a strike has come to nothing because of over-generous and unilaterally fixed minimum services.” 43. The relevant provisions read as follows: “Article 6 – The right to bargain collectively With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to bargain collectively, the Contracting Parties undertake: 2. to promote, where necessary and appropriate, machinery for voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements; 3. to promote the establishment and use of appropriate machinery for conciliation and voluntary arbitration for the settlement of labour disputes; and recognise: 4. the right of workers and employers to collective action in cases of conflicts of interest, including the right to strike, subject to obligations that might arise out of collective agreements previously entered into. Article G[2] – Restrictions The rights and principles set forth in Part I when effectively realised, and their effective exercise as provided for in Part II, shall not be subject to any restrictions or limitations not specified in those parts, except such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others or for the protection of public interest, national security, public health, or morals. The restrictions permitted under this Charter to the rights and obligations set forth herein shall not be applied for any purpose other than that for which they have been prescribed. Appendix to the Social CharterArticle 6, paragraph 4 It is understood that each Contracting Party may, insofar as it is concerned, regulate the exercise of the right to strike by law, provided that any further restriction that this might place on the right can be justified under the terms of Article G1.” 44. In its Digest of the case-law of the European Committee of Social Rights of 1 September 2008, the Committee (whose function is to rule on the conformity of the situation in signatory States with the European Social Charter) stated as follows in the Section “Interpretation of the different provisions” (the quotation below is provided without the footnotes, which contain references to specific cases): “3. Specific restrictions to the right to strike The rights and principles set forth in Part I when effectively realised, and their effective exercise as provided for in Part II, shall not be subject to any restrictions or limitations not specified in those parts, except such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others or for the protection of public interest, national security, public health, or morals. i. Restrictions related to essential services/sectors Prohibiting strikes in sectors which are essential to the community is deemed to serve a legitimate purpose since strikes in these sectors could pose a threat to public interest, national security and/or public health. However, simply banning strikes even in essential sectors – particularly when they are extensively defined, i.e. “energy” or “health” – is not deemed proportionate to the specific requirements of each sector. At most, the introduction of a minimum service requirement in these sectors might be considered in conformity with Article 6 § 4. ...” 45. On 22 October 2010 the Committee issued its conclusions (2010/def/UKR) on the situation in Ukraine as regards collective action. The relevant extracts read as follows: Article 6 - Right to bargain collectivelyParagraph 4 - Collective action “The Committee takes note of the information contained in the report submitted by Ukraine. Article 44 of the Constitution guarantees workers the right to strike to protect their economic and social interests. In addition Section 27 of the Law on Trade Unions guarantees the right of trade unions to, inter alia, organise and stage strikes in order to protect workers labour and socioeconomic rights. The Law on the Procedure of settlement of collective disputes contains provisions on the right to strike, including the procedure to be followed prior to exercising the right to strike, etc... Specific restrictions to the right to strike Under Article 6 § 4 the right to strike may be restricted provided that any restriction satisfies the conditions laid down in Article G[3] which provides that restrictions on the rights guaranteed by the Charter that are prescribed by law, serve a legitimate purpose and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others or for the protection of public interest, national security, public health or morals. Restrictions related to essential service/sectors The Committee notes that there are restrictions on the right to strike for workers in the emergency and rescue services, workers at nuclear facilities, workers in underground undertakings as well as workers at electric power engineering enterprises. The Committee recalls that restricting strikes in sectors which are essential to the community is deemed to serve a legitimate purpose since strikes in these sectors could pose a threat to public interest, national security and/or public health. However, simply banning strikes even in essential sectors – particularly when they are extensively defined, is not deemed proportionate to the specific requirements of each sector, but providing for the conformity with Article 6 § 4. Therefore the Committee asks for further information on the extent of the restrictions on the right to strike in these sectors, in particular as regards “underground undertakings”. In addition the Committee notes that according to the report strikes in the transport sector may be prohibited, inter alia, if the transportation of passengers is affected. The Committee seeks confirmation that this interpretation is correct, in this respect it refers above to its case law mentioned above...” 46. The relevant extract of Resolution CM/ResChS(2012)4 on collective complaint No. 32/2005 against Bulgaria reads as follows: “[The Committee finds] that it has not been established that the restriction of the right to strike imposed by Section 51 of the [Railway Transport Act] pursues a legitimate purpose in the meaning of Article G1. The alleged and not further specified consequences for the economy do not qualify as a legitimate aim in this respect. In the absence of a legitimate purpose, the restriction to the right to strike according to Section 51 of the [Railway Transport Act] may not be considered as being necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article G1.” 47. The relevant section of the conclusions of 22 October 2010 in respect of Lithuania reads as follows: “Restrictions related to essential services/sectors The Labour Code provides an obligation to provide minimum services to meet the immediate needs of the community in the event of strikes in undertakings and sectors covered by Article 77.4 of the Labour Code. Such minimum services are determined either by the Government after consultation with the Tripartite Council or by the relevant municipal executive after consultations with the parties to the collective dispute. The undertakings and sectors concerned are the railways and public transport, civil aviation, communications and energy enterprises, health care and pharmaceutical institutions, food, water, sewage and waste disposal enterprises, oil refineries, enterprises with a continuous production cycle and other enterprises where work stoppages would result in grave and hazardous consequences for the community or human life and health.” 48. The relevant part of the conclusions of 30 June 2006 in respect of Slovenia reads as follows: “The report ... points out that as regards the sectors of the police force, the defence forces, aviation, customs and railway transport, as well as other activities where a minimum level of the working process is required to be carried out, there have practically been no relevant strikes in recent years since disputes are resolved by negotiations following the prior announcement of a strike.” 49. The relevant extracts read as follows (emphasis added): “1. As Europe undergoes rapid political, economic, social and cultural integration – within the European Union and in the wider Council of Europe area – the vulnerability of each country to disruptions in others is becoming increasingly pronounced. This holds also for strike actions in essential services, whether in public or private ownership, such as in the transport sector (especially air transport), or in public health, at a time of intensified international contacts and labour mobility. The wide differences in national legislation and practices between European countries are, against this background, increasingly at variance with the overall state of European integration and prejudicial to it. 2. Of further concern is the lack of balance in many countries between, on the one hand, the right to strike, including in essential services, as enshrined in various treaties from the Council of Europe’s revised European Social Charter (ETS No. 163) to the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, and, on the other hand, the fundamental right of citizens to pursue their lives unhindered, preserve their health and well-being, and the right of society to function and to maintain its overall ability to function as well as protect the health and welfare of its citizens. In certain European countries, this balance is seriously tilted against citizens and society. 3. The Parliamentary Assembly, against this background, calls on the governments of the member states of the Council of Europe: - to carry out studies on the cost of strikes in essential public services to the national economy, companies and citizens, both directly in the form of lost output and indirectly such as through impaired social relations and harm done to a country’s international reputation, and to collate and compare the results at the level of the Council of Europe; - to intensify research and the exchange of information on laws and regulations in force in different Council of Europe member states as regards the right to strike in essential services or limitations thereto; - to harmonise as far as possible national legislation governing strikes in essential services so that citizens throughout the Council of Europe area can be protected adequately and in a homogeneous manner; - to make the fullest possible use toward this end of the provisions of the revised European Social Charter governing the right to strike and the protection of other social rights of citizens, including in the Charter’s enforcement mechanism; - to encourage similar efforts within the more limited membership of the European Union, via EU legislation capable of subsequently being applied, with the necessary adaptations, in the Council of Europe area as a whole.”

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicants are: 1) The Church of Scientology of St Petersburg, an unincorporated group of Russian citizens formed for the collective study of Scientology (“the applicant group”); 2) Ms Galina Petrovna Shurinova, born in 1954, the president of the applicant group and a member since 1989; 3) Ms Nadezhda Ivanovna Shchemeleva, born in 1955, a member of the applicant group since 1993; 4) Ms Anastasiya Gennadyevna Terentyeva, born in 1979, a member of the applicant group since 1998; 5) Mr Ivan Vladimirovich Matsitskiy, born in 1975, a member of the applicant group since 1994; 6) Ms Yuliya Anatolyevna Bryntseva, born in 1977, a member of the applicant group since 1995; 7) Ms Galina Georgiyevna Frolova, born in 1955, a member of the applicant group since 1999. 6. In 1984, a first group of Scientologists appeared in St Petersburg under the leadership of Mr M. Goldberg. By the end of the 1980s it had split into two smaller groups, one of which was led by the second applicant. 7. On 23 March 1995 the second applicant, together with nine other founder members of the “Church of the Scientology Mission in St Petersburg”, applied for registration of their group. Having received no response for more than two years, the second applicant pressed the authorities for an explanation. The St Petersburg Justice Department replied that their application had been sent to the State Duma’s Expert Consultative Council for an opinion by an expert in legal and religious studies but had received no response, and it had been decided to “leave the application unconsidered”. 8. On 7 February 2002 the individual applicants, together with other fellow believers, submitted a new application for registration of the applicant group as a local religious organisation. The municipal council of municipal circuit no. 20 of St Petersburg provided the applicants with a letter which stated: “In accordance with section 11 (5) of the Religions Act and on the basis of the application and documents provided, the municipal council ... confirms that the religious group of Scientologists has existed in St Petersburg since 1984.” 9. On 6 March 2002 the St Petersburg Justice Department refused the application, citing three technical grounds relating to the application documentation. On 7 March 2002 the applicants corrected these defects and resubmitted the application. 10. On 3 April 2002 the Justice Department notified the applicants that it had extended the period for consideration of the application because of the “necessity of conducting a State expert religious study”. 11. On 11 September 2002 the Justice Department issued a formal refusal of the resubmitted application. The refusal made no reference to any religious study but instead cited eight different technical grounds and asserted that the confirmation of the applicant group’s existence in St Petersburg for at least fifteen years was “unreliable”, without giving further details. 12. On 24 October 2002 the applicants resubmitted a corrected application which was refused on 22 November 2002, referring to the eight new technical grounds and the “unreliability” of the group’s existence for fifteen years. It also stated that an unspecified expert religious study had concluded that the applicant group was non-religious in nature. 13. On 19 December 2002 the second applicant asked the Justice Department to explain the basis for its claim regarding the “unreliability” of the group’s existence and to provide her with a copy of the religious study. In a letter of 8 January 2003, the Justice Department declined to give any clarification, referring to its discretionary power to refuse applications. 14. The third applicant complained to the Ombudsman about the Justice Department’s actions. In response to a subsequent enquiry from the Ombudsman’s office, the Justice Department supplied a copy of the religious study, dated 19 November 2002 and authored by Mr I., an academic secretary at the State Museum of the History of Religion in St Petersburg. 15. On 11 February 2003 the Ombudsman notified the head of the Justice Department that the religious study had breached the established procedure for conducting religious studies, as approved by Government Regulation no. 565. The study had not been approved by majority vote of the panel of experts duly appointed under the terms of the Regulation and therefore reflected nothing more than Mr I.’s personal opinion. 16. On 17 April and 14 August 2003 the applicants submitted a fifth and a sixth registration application, which were refused on 14 May and 8 September 2003 respectively. On each occasion, the Justice Department cited a number of new technical grounds that it had not relied upon in the previous refusal: it also referred to the expert religious study and the assertion that the confirmation of the applicant group’s existence for at least fifteen years had been “unreliable”. 17. Responding to a further request for clarification by the applicant Ms Shurinova, on 31 July 2003 the Justice Department stated that she did not have a right of access to the documents supporting the conclusion that the information purportedly confirming the existence of the religious group for fifteen years was unreliable, and that the law did not require it to provide any explanation as to the reasons for refusing State registration. 18. On 11 October 2003 the applicants challenged the Justice Department’s refusals in court. The first hearing on the merits was held on 21 September 2005, and further hearings were held on 1 November and 20 December 2005. 19. On the latter date the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg gave judgment, holding that the refusal had been lawful. In respect of the Justice Department’s rejection of the confirmation letter, it stated: “Having examined the letter of 16 February 2002 and the reply from the municipal council to the enquiry from the [Justice Department] concerning the documents that served as the basis for the letter, the court concludes that the applicants have not supplied evidence that there was only one religious group of Scientologists in St Petersburg that included the applicants and that the letter was given to their particular group. One cannot exclude the possibility that there were many groups practising this creed in St Petersburg and that the letter confirms the existence of one of the [other] groups of Scientologists, and not the religious group of Scientologists that decided to create the local religious organisation ‘Church of Scientology of St Petersburg’... Even if any of the participants in the religious group that currently includes the applicants had studied Scientology in St Petersburg since 1984 and had participated in Scientologist rituals and ceremonies and in auditing, that does not prove that he or she did so within one and the same continuously operating, stable religious group that currently includes the applicants, as opposed to some other group that currently does or does not exist, and [later] ended up forming part of the applicants’ group. In addition, the court takes into consideration the following. The St Petersburg Law no. 111-35 of 23 June 1997 on Local Authorities, which establishes an exhaustive list of matters that come within the competence of municipal councils in St Petersburg (section 8), did not place the registration of religious organisation or the issuing of letters confirming the existence of a religious group in St Petersburg within the competence of municipal bodies. There is no St Petersburg law that confers such powers upon municipal bodies. On the basis of the above, it follows that the [municipal council] was not competent to issue such letters. Furthermore, as can be seen from the municipal council’s reply ... to the court’s enquiry, the [municipal council] was formed on 8 February 1998 and registered by order no. 111 of 27 May 1998 of the Legislative Assembly of St Petersburg, so it cannot reliably confirm the existence of any religious group before its formation in 1998...” 20. As to the Justice Department’s reliance on Mr I.’s religious study, the court noted that at the time of the study’s preparation no expert panel had been appointed in St Petersburg under the terms of the Regulation, even though the Justice Department had “undertaken all possible measures” to comply with the Regulation. The court did not make any assessment of the legal significance of Mr I.’s religious study. 21. The applicants appealed. 22. On 24 May 2006 the St Petersburg City Court rejected their appeal, endorsing the first-instance court’s findings that the municipal council was not authorised by law to provide confirmation of the religious group’s existence or the claim that it had been one and the same group of Scientologists who had existed for fifteen years.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1968 and lived in Balezino in the Republic of Udmurtiya prior to his arrest. 5. On 29 December 2005 the applicant was arrested on drug-related charges and taken to the local anti-narcotics unit. According to the applicant, he was beaten by policemen and then questioned in the absence of a lawyer. 6. On 8 November 2006 the Balezinskiy District Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to two years and ten months’ imprisonment. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the judgment. 7. During several periods between 29 December 2005 and 9 November 2006 the applicant was held in IVS Balezino, a temporary detention facility located in the Udmurtiya Republic. 8. The applicant submitted that the facility had been overcrowded. There were no windows in the cells where he stayed. The ventilation and water taps did not function. No mattresses or bed linen was available. Moreover, the detainees were not taken outdoor for exercise. 9. The applicant lodged a number of complaints seeking to bring the above issues to the attention of domestic authorities. In his reply of 5 October 2006 the district prosecutor acknowledged that the conditions of detention in the IVS had fallen short of the legal requirements. He further informed the applicant that he had brought an action against the management of the IVS for their failure to improve the conditions. 10. On 1 September 2006 the Balezinskiy District Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya granted the district prosecutor’s lawsuit. It found that the conditions of detention in the IVS Balezino had been characterised, inter alia, by a lack of bed linen and a possibility to take a shower and that the detainees had not been afforded daily outdoor exercise. 11. On 19 October 2006 the regional Ministry of Interior sent a letter to the applicant, acknowledging, in particular, that the detainees kept in the IVS had been deprived of outdor exercise and and lacked bed linen. 12. After some time the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in connection with inadequate conditions of detention. By final judgment of 6 February 2008, the Supreme Court of Udmurtiya found that the applicant’s allegations had been substantiated and granted the claim, awarding him 3,000 Russian roubles. 13. On 27 February 2007 the applicant lodged his first letter with the Court. It contained, in particular, a detailed description of the conditions of his detention in the IVS Balezino. 14. “You must send the duly completed application form and any necessary supplementary documents to the Court as soon as possible and at the latest within six months of the date of the present letter. No extension of this period is possible. If the application form and all the relevant documents are not sent within the above period, the file opened will be destroyed without further warning.” 15. According to a postmark on an envelope, on 30 October 2007 the applicant sent his completed application form which reached the Registry on 12 November 2007. 16. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court in force from 1 July 2006 until 1 January 2009 provided in its relevant part that: “5. The date of introduction of the application shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the object of the application. The Court may for good cause nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be the date of introduction.” 17. Practice Direction on Institution of Proceedings issued by the President of the Court on 1 November 2003 to supplement Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court read, in the relevant part, as follows: “4. If an application has not been submitted on the official form or an introductory letter does not contain all the information referred to in Rule 47, the Registry may ask the applicant to fill in the form. It should as a rule be returned within 6 weeks from the date of the Registry’s letter.” 18. On 11 December 2007 and 22 September and 1 December 2008 the Rules of Court were amended, with effect from 1 January 2009. Rule 47 was rephrased as follows: “5. The date of introduction of the application for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the subject matter of the application, provided that a duly completed application form has been submitted within the time limits laid down by the Court. The Court may for good cause nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be the date of introduction.” 19. On 22 September 2008 the text of the Practice Direction was amended as well, providing that: “4. If an application has not been submitted on the official form or an introductory letter does not contain all the information referred to in Rule 47, the applicant may be required to submit a duly completed form. It must be despatched within eight weeks from the date of the Registry’s letter requesting the applicant to complete and return the form. Failure to comply with this time-limit will have implications for the date of introduction of the application and may therefore affect the applicant’s compliance with the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.”

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant lives at Nesoddtangen, Norway. 6. In 1989 Mrs B., who was then the applicant’s wife, bought a property named Ekheim from him for 6,400,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK), currently corresponding to approximately 760,000 euros (EUR). The couple drew up marital agreements (“ektepakt”) in 1990 and 1995. 7. On 3 November 1995 Mrs B. and the applicant concluded an agreement stipulating that they each owned 50% of the Ekheim estate, regardless of what was stated or might follow from formal entitlements (hereinafter referred to as the joint ownership agreement). 8. Subsequently, after their divorce, the applicant lodged an action against Mrs B. with Fredrikstad City Court (tingrett), seeking a ruling to the effect that the marital agreements were invalid and that the joint ownership agreement was valid. By a judgment of 4 April 2001, the City Court found against the applicant and in favour of the respondent, concluding that the marital agreements were valid and that the joint ownership agreement was invalid. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment, which gained legal force. 9. In 2005 Mrs B. sold the Ekheim estate to Ekheim Invest AS, a limited liability company, for NOK 15,000,000 (approximately EUR 1,1780,000). 10. On 28 June 2007 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the City Court against Ekheim Invest claiming that he had title to 50% of the Ekheim estate and seeking, firstly, an order that the latter convey 50% of the property to him and, secondly, that he held a pre-emption right with respect to the remaining 50%. 11. According to the summary of the applicant’s submissions made by the City Court in its judgment referred to below, the applicant argued in the main as follows: (a) The question was how to interpret the former spouses’ joint ownership agreement of 3 November 1995. In the case that had previously been decided by the City Court on 4 April 2001, the subject-matter of the dispute had been whether the marital agreements from 1990 and 1995 were valid. The subject-matter in the present case was different. Two spouses having completely separate property had the opportunity to conclude a mutual agreement involving an obligation of performance for each party. According to legal doctrine, such a contract was not dependent on any condition as to form. (b) The contract had been a reality in the present case. Ekheim Invest had purchased the half of the Ekheim estate that had been in Mrs B.’s ownership, not the half owned by the applicant, because Mrs B. had had no right to sell the other half. Consequently, Ekheim Invest ought to transfer by deed of conveyance half of the Ekheim estate back to the applicant. (c) The applicant further submitted that in its 2001 judgment the City Court had not reviewed the validity of the joint ownership agreement. In any event, the legal force of that judgment extended only to the relationship between Mrs B. and the applicant, not between Ekheim Invest and the applicant. The applicant referred to legal doctrine, according to which a judgment as a main rule only had legal force in the relationship between the parties to the proceedings. Moreover, the parties’ arguments ought to be taken as a starting point in the assessment of whether any new factual circumstances had arisen. (d) The applicant’s argument was that in the period since 2001 the estate had increased so greatly in value that the City Court now had to assess the ownership issue independently of the conclusion reached in the 2001 judgment. At that time the mortgages on the property had clearly exceeded its value and it had therefore been unproblematic to hold that, in light of an on-going bankruptcy at the time, the applicant would not have been in a better position in the absence of the marriage settlement agreements. It would be unreasonable if Mrs B. or her successors should be able to profit from the tremendous increase in the property’s value. 12. By a judgment of 21 January 2008, the City Court found in favour of the respondent Ekheim Invest, on the ground that the applicant did not have title to the property in question as the respondent company had derived its rights from Mrs B. and the City Court had ruled in her favour in its 2001 judgment. It rejected the applicant’s argument based on legal doctrine that the 2001 judgment only had legal force between the parties by referring to another passage in the legal manual in question from which it appeared that the point only applied to disputes between a private party and public authorities. The action brought by the applicant had no public-law aspects and the City Court did not consider that the legal doctrine referred to had any bearing on the present case. 13. The applicant appealed against the City Court’s judgment of 21 January 2008 to the Borgarting High Court (lagmannsrett). He argued in particular that the City Court had confused his pleadings and references to legal doctrine made at the oral hearing and had shortened the overall duration of the hearing from the three days initially scheduled to five hours. One hour into the hearing the City Court had truncated the hearing of the applicant’s witnesses, including the presentation of documentary evidence regarding the disputed agreements. The City Court’s hearing record had also been marred by formal mistakes. 14. On 4 April 2008 the High Court warned the applicant that it envisaged refusing admission of his appeal and gave him until 21 April 2008 to comment. After an extension of this time-limit to 5 May 2008 the applicant on the latter date requested that his appeal be admitted for examination or, in the alternative, that the High Court quash the City Court’s judgment and refer the case back to the City Court for fresh examination. On 5 and 11 June 2008 he filed additional submissions. 15. In a unanimous decision (beslutning) of 12 June 2008 the High Court concluded that it refused to admit the appeal (“Anken nektes fremmet”), giving the following reasons: “The High Court finds it clear that the appeal will not succeed, and that its admission should therefore be refused pursuant to Article 29-13(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 16. The applicant appealed against the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court, arguing notably that the refusal of admission of the appeal lacked reasons. 17. On 19 September 2008 the Appeals Leave Committee of the Supreme Court (Høyesteretts ankeutvalg), pointing out that its jurisdiction was confined to reviewing the High Court procedure (Article 29-13 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure), unanimously found it clear that the appeal would not succeed and therefore rejected the appeal under Article 30-9 (2).

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant worked as a deputy chief guard in “Lviv Railways”, a State-owned company. 5. On 26 October 2009 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant suspecting that he, against bribes, had covered up thefts from the company’s premises in conspiracy with S. and D. 6. On 3 November 2009 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention stating that “[The applicant] committed serious crimes, he does not admit his guilt, if at liberty [he] will influence witnesses and other persons involved in the criminal case. [As the applicant] works as a policeman, [he] is well aware of how to obstruct the investigation and justice”. There is no evidence in the case-file that the applicant worked as a policemen prior to or during the events described in the present application. It remains unknown whether S. and D. were also arrested or remained at liberty. 7. On 9 November 2009 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. 8. On 25 December 2009 the Galytskyy Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 February 2010 on the grounds that “not all the applicant’s accomplices were detained ... [the investigative authorities] keep receiving complaints [from persons who gave bribes to the applicant]. If at liberty the applicant will have an opportunity to obstruct the investigation or abscond”. On 30 December 2009 the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. 9. On 22 February 2010 the Galytskyy Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 April 2010 stating that “the accused committed serious crimes, he does not admit his guilt and refuses to testify, while if at liberty [the applicant], who has higher education and extensive work experience [as a guard], might influence witnesses, obstruct the investigation and abscond”. 10. On 22 April 2010 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 26 July 2010 stating that there was a need to carry out a number of investigative measures in the case, the applicant was charged with serious crimes, he might abscond, obstruct the investigation, or continue his criminal activities. 11. On an unspecified date the preliminary investigations in the applicant’s case were completed and the case was submitted to the Sykhiv District Court of Lviv for trial. 12. On 17 August 2010 the Sykhiv District Court, holding a preliminary hearing in the criminal case against the applicant, upheld the applicant’s preventive measure without providing any reasons for doing so or fixing a time-limit for the applicant’s detention. 13. On 16 February 2012 the Sykhiv Court allowed the applicant’s request for change of a preventive measure on health grounds. On the same date the applicant was released against an undertaking not to abscond.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1973 and lived in Vladivostok. She died on 16 April 2007. 6. On an unspecified date the military prosecutor’s office had opened criminal proceedings against the applicant’s father K., a naval officer, on suspicion of document forgery. 7. On 14 March 2003 the acting prosecutor of the Pacific Fleet issued a warrant to search the applicant’s flat. The parties did not submit a copy of the warrant. It is apparent from the search record of 14 March 2003 that the purpose of the search was “to find and seize objects and documents, including draft calculations in respect of the salary due to [K.] and other naval officers of the ship Argun, and other data storage media exposing [K.’s] involvement in criminal activity”. 8. The police came to the applicant’s flat on the same evening, at about 9.30 p.m. As the applicant refused to let them in, the police broke down the door and suggested that the applicant surrender objects and documents which could be of relevance for the criminal case against her father. The applicant surrendered K.’s seaman’s passport and claimed that she had no other documents or objects belonging to her father. The police searched the flat and seized the applicant’s seaman’s passport, a printer and six floppy disks. The search ended at about 11 p.m. 9. On 18 March 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint before the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok, claiming that the search had been unlawful. She submitted, in particular, that night searches were unlawful under domestic law. She further submitted that the search had not been justified because the calculations in respect of the salary due to naval officers of the ship Argun had been submitted to the court at an earlier date and could therefore be found in the case file. She also complained that her and her husband’s personal belongings, including their printer and floppy disks and her seaman’s passport, had been seized. 10. On 20 April 2003 the applicant was informed that her complaint would be examined on 21 April 2003 by the Military Court of the Vladivostok Garrison. 11. On 21 April 2003 the Military Court of the Vladivostok Garrison examined the applicant’s complaint. The applicant did not attend the hearing. The court found: “[The applicant’s] signature on the search warrant confirms that she had been notified of it at 9.30 p.m. on 14 March 2003. It is apparent from the search record of 14 March 2003 that a search was carried out in [the applicant’s] flat from 9.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. In the course of the search the following objects were seized: seaman’s passport in the name of K. no. [...], seaman’s passport in the name of K. no. [...], seaman’s passport in the name of [the applicant] no. [...], Canon printer no. EUK04532, its power module no. 981202TT06 and six floppy disks. That investigative measure was carried out in the presence of two attesting witnesses who signed the search record and a note explaining their rights. Before the start of the search [the applicant] wrote a note on the search record stating that her rights, obligations or applicable procedures had not been explained to her. It is apparent from the questioning record of witness [N.] that she participated in the search of [the applicant’s] flat as an attesting witness. Her rights were respected. In view of the above, it follows that the search of [the applicant’s] flat was carried out in accordance with Articles 182 and 183 of the CCrP, without any breaches of law. [The applicant’s] complaint is therefore unsubstantiated and must be rejected.” 12. The applicant appealed. She complained, in particular, that the search had been carried out late at night and that the personal belongings seized from her were of no relevance to the criminal case against her father. The applicant expressed her wish to be present and represented at the appeal hearing. 13. On 23 June 2003 the Military Court of the Vladivostok Garrison informed the applicant that her appeal would be examined by the Military Court of the Pacific Fleet on 7 July 2003. 14. According to the applicant, on 7 July 2003 her counsel telephoned the judge and asked for an adjournment of the appeal hearing because she – the counsel – was ill. The applicant was present during the call. According to the Government, no record of that telephone call was found in the case file. 15. On 7 July 2003 the Military Court of the Pacific Fleet held a hearing in the absence of the applicant and her counsel and upheld the judgment of 21 April 2003. It noted that the applicant had been informed of the date of the hearing but had not attended for unknown reasons. She had not asked for an adjournment. The court further held: “It is apparent from the case-file that the search [of the applicant’s flat] was ordered on 14 March 2003 by the acting prosecutor of the Pacific Fleet at the request of the investigator ... in connection with criminal proceedings against her father [K.]. It is apparent from the search record that during the search [K.’s and the applicant’s] seaman’s passports, a printer and its power module were seized. There is no evidence of any breaches of procedure. [The applicant’s] complaint about the use of force during the search is not supported by any evidence in the case-file. There is no evidence that [the applicant] or members of her family sought medical aid. Nor did she mention the use of force when signing the search record. Domestic law allows the possibility of carrying out investigative measures at night in cases of urgency. Moreover, the search of [the applicant’s] flat continued until after 11 p.m. because she had refused to let the police in. There is no evidence of breaches of law in seizing [the applicant’s] documents and other belongings during the search.” 16. The applicant received a copy of the appeal decision on 16 July 2003.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Batalha (Portugal). 5. On 15 March 2006 the applicant lodged an action with the Court of Porto de Mós (domestic proceedings no. 607/06.2TBPMS) seeking the recognition of an easement (servidão de passagem). 6. On 24 May 2006 and on 27 June 2007 the applicant rectified the initial application upon request of the Court of Porto de Mós. 7. Between 28 April and 2 May 2006 the defendants lodged their submissions in reply (contestação) and informed the Court of Porto de Mós that one of the defendants had died. 8. On 9 January 2008 the Court stayed the proceedings, pending the outcome of the inheritance proceedings in relation to the deceased defendant. 9. On 28 January 2008 the applicant applied to the Court for leave to continue the proceedings against the widow of the deceased defendant (incidente de habilitação de herdeiros). 10. On 30 July 2008 the applicant requested that the proceedings also continued against M. as heir of the deceased. 11. On 18 November 2008 the applicant’s lawyer resigned. A new one was appointed on 10 March 2009. 12. On 20 March 2010 the Court of Porto de Mós requested the applicant to provide information with regard to the relationship between M. and the deceased defendant. 13. On 15 July 2010 the Court of Porto de Mós delivered a decision concerning the proceedings of inheritance, stating that the deceased defendant’s widow and M. should replace him in the proceedings. 14. On 8 November 2011 the Court of Porto de Mós, taking into account its decision of 15 July 2010, resumed the main proceedings. 15. On 23 October 2012 the applicant’s representative resigned. The applicant appointed a new one on 19 December 2012. 16. On 7 February 2013 the judge gave directions (despacho saneador) setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding. The case was set down for hearing on 7 June 2013. Two more hearings were scheduled for 12 July and 13 September 2013. 17. On 29 November 2013 the court of first instance partially found in favour of the applicant. 18. On 28 January 2014 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Coimbra Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação). 19. The proceedings are still pending at second instance.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1967 and is living in The Hague. 9. In March 1987 the applicant met and started a relationship with Mr W., who – like the applicant – was born and had always lived in Suriname. Both of them had acquired Surinamese nationality in 1975 when Suriname gained its independence (Article 3 of the Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Suriname concerning the assignment of nationality (Toescheidingsovereenkomst inzake nationaliteiten tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Republiek Suriname), see paragraph 62 below). In September 1989, the applicant and Mr W. started to cohabit in the house of the latter’s paternal grandfather in Suriname. 10. On 19 October 1991, Mr W. travelled from Suriname to the Netherlands, holding a Netherlands visa for the purpose of stay with his father in the Netherlands. In 1993, Mr W. was granted Netherlands nationality which entailed the renunciation of his Surinamese nationality. 11. Mr W. has one sister, two brothers and one half-brother who are living in the Netherlands. Two other half-brothers and one half-sister are living in Suriname. The applicant has one brother, G., who was expelled from the Netherlands to Suriname in 2009. The applicant has also one half-brother and one half-sister who are living in the Netherlands. She has another half-sister who is living in Suriname. 12. Between 1991 and 1995, the applicant filed five unsuccessful requests for a Netherlands visa for the purpose of visiting a relative. These requests were rejected because her sponsor (referent) was insufficiently solvent, had failed to sign the required affidavit of support (garantverklaring) or had failed to supply sufficient information required for the assessment of the visa request. The applicant did not challenge any of these rejections in administrative appeal proceedings. 13. On 19 November 1996 the applicant filed a sixth visa request for the purpose of visiting a relative. After this request had been granted on 4 March 1997, the applicant entered the Netherlands on 12 March 1997 and did not return to Suriname when her visa expired 45 days later. To date, she has been staying in the Netherlands. She lived in Rotterdam until 20 July 1998, when she moved to The Hague. Since 17 December 1998 she has been living at the same address in The Hague. 14. On 20 October 1997, the applicant applied for a residence permit. According to the applicant, she had done so for the purpose of taking up residence with her Netherlands-national partner Mr W. According to the Government, the applicant’s stated aim had been to take up “paid employment”. On 16 February 1998, the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) decided not to process the application (buiten behandeling stellen) as the applicant had on two occasions failed to appear in person before the immigration authorities for the purpose of giving further information about her application. When, on 13 February 1998, the applicant’s lawyer had requested a new appointment on the ground that she would be unable to attend the interview scheduled for 16 February 1998, she was informed by the immigration authorities that – despite her lawyer’s absence – the applicant should appear in person. The applicant did not appear on 16 February 1998. The Deputy Minister’s decision of 16 February 1998 was notified to the applicant on 23 February 1998 and she was ordered to leave the Netherlands within seven days. 15. The applicant filed an objection (bezwaar) against the decision of 16 February 1998. As this objection was denied suspensive effect, she applied for a provisional measure (voorlopige voorziening) in the form of a court injunction preventing her expulsion pending the determination of her objection. This application was rejected on 23 December 1999 by the Acting President of the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague sitting in Haarlem. The applicant’s objection against the decision of 16 February 1998 was rejected by the Deputy Minister on 17 January 2000. The applicant’s appeal against this decision to the Regional Court of The Hague and her accompanying application for a provisional measure were rejected on 12 July 2001 by the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Utrecht. No further appeal lay against this ruling. 16. In the meantime, the applicant had married Mr W. on 25 June 1999 and, in September 2000, a son was born of this marriage. Under the Netherlands nationality rules, the applicant’s child is a Netherlands national. Since the child was unwell, he required lengthy treatment in hospital. He is currently attending secondary school and has no health problems. 17. On 20 April 2001, the applicant applied unsuccessfully for a residence permit on the basis of the so-called three-year policy (driejarenbeleid) or for compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature. Under this three-year policy a residence permit could be granted if a request for such a permit had not been determined within a period of three years for reasons not imputable to the petitioner and provided that there were no contra-indications such as, for instance, a criminal record. In the course of the proceedings on this request, the provisional-measures judge (voorzieningenrechter) of the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Amsterdam granted the applicant’s request for a provisional measure (injunction on removal) on 23 February 2004. The final decision was given on 17 May 2004 by the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Amsterdam. 18. On 10 December 2005, a second child was born of the applicant’s marriage. This child also holds Netherlands nationality. 19. On 23 January 2007, the applicant filed a request for a residence permit for the purpose of stay with her children in the Netherlands. This request was rejected because the applicant did not hold the required provisional residence visa (machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf). Such a visa has to be applied for at a Netherlands mission in the petitioner’s country of origin and it is a prerequisite for the grant of a residence permit (verblijfsvergunning) which confers more permanent residence rights. The applicant was not exempted from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa. She challenged this decision unsuccessfully in administrative appeal proceedings in which the final decision was taken by the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Haarlem on 19 April 2007. 20. On 7 May 2007, the applicant requested the Deputy Minister of Justice to reconsider (heroverwegen) the negative decision on her last request. On 28 September 2007, the applicant filed a complaint with the Deputy Minister on account of the latter’s failure to reply to her request for reconsideration. By letter of 12 November 2007, the Deputy Minister informed the applicant that although her complaint concerning delay was well-founded there was no reason for a reconsideration of the decision. 21. On 28 September 2007, the applicant applied for a grant of a residence permit at the discretion of the Deputy Minister (conform beschikking staatssecretaris) based on grounds of special and individual circumstances (vanwege bijzondere en individuele omstandigheden). 22. On 7 July 2008, the Deputy Minister of Justice rejected this application. The applicant filed an objection with the Deputy Minister against this decision as well as an application to the Regional Court of The Hague for a provisional measure (injunction on removal pending the objection proceedings). On 17 November 2008, having noted that this request was not opposed by the Deputy Minister, the Regional Court of The Hague granted the provisional measure. On 11 March 2009, after a hearing on the applicant’s objection held on 15 January 2009, the Deputy Minister rejected the applicant’s objection. 23. The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 11 March 2009 to the Regional Court of The Hague and her accompanying application for a provisional measure in the form of an injunction on her removal pending the determination of her appeal were rejected on 8 December 2009 by the provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Haarlem. In its relevant part, this ruling reads as follows: “2.11 It is not in dispute that the appellant does not hold a valid provisional residence visa and that she is not eligible for an exemption from the requirement to hold such a visa under section 17 § 1 of the Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000) or section 3.71 § 2 of the Aliens Decree 2000 (Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000). It is only in dispute whether reason dictates that the defendant should exempt the appellant from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa on the basis of section 3.71 § 4 of the Aliens Decree [for reasons of exceptional hardship (onbillijkheid van overwegende aard)]. 2.12 The Regional Court finds that the defendant could reasonably conclude that in the present case there are no special and individual circumstances on the basis of which insistence on compliance with the visa requirement would entail exceptional hardship. ... 2.18 The appellant’s reliance on Article 8 of the Convention fails. There is family life between the appellant and her husband and her minor children, but the defendant’s refusal to exempt her from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa does not constitute an interference with the right to respect for family life as the defendant’s decision did not deprive her of a residence permit enabling her to enjoy her family life in the Netherlands. 2.19 It does not appear that there is a positive obligation for the Netherlands State under Article 8 of the Convention to exempt the applicant, contrary to the policy pursued in this area, from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa. It is of importance at the outset that there has been no appearance of any objective obstacle to the enjoyment of family life outside the Netherlands. Taking into account the young age of the appellant’s children, it can also reasonably be expected that they would follow the appellant to Suriname for the duration of the proceedings relating to the provisional residence visa. This is not altered by the fact that both children are Netherlands nationals. The fact that the appellant’s husband is currently being detained gives no cause for finding that ... there is an objective obstacle. 2.20 The appellant has cited the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Rodrigues da Silva [and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, ECHR 2006‑I], Said Botan [v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 1869/04, 10 March 2009] and Ibrahim Mohamed [v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 1872/04, 10 March 2009]. This cannot succeed, for the following reasons. The case of Rodrigues da Silva did not concern a temporary separation in connection with maintaining the requirement to hold a provisional residence visa, so the case cannot be said to be comparable. In the cases of Said Botan and Ibrahim Mohamed the European Court found that the reasons for lodging the complaints had been removed, because a residence permit had been granted to the complainants in those cases. For that reason, their complaints were not considered further. The Regional Court fails to see in what manner the European Court’s findings in those two cases could be of relevance to the appellant’s case. 2.21 The appellant has further invoked Article 2 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. In so far as the provisions invoked entail a directly applicable norm, they have no further implications beyond the fact that in proceedings such as those at hand, the interests of the children concerned must be taken into account. In the decision of 11 March 2009, the situation of the appellant’s two minor children was explicitly taken into account in the assessment. As the provisions invoked do not contain a norm as regards the weight that must be given in a concrete case to the interests of a child, there is no ground for finding that those provisions have been violated. 24. On 2 August 2009, upon his return to the Netherlands from a trip to Suriname for the funeral of his foster mother, the applicant’s husband had been found to have swallowed cocaine pellets. He was placed in pre-trial detention. On 8 October 2009, a single-judge chamber (politierechter) of the Haarlem Regional Court convicted him of offences under the Opium Act (Opiumwet) and sentenced him to seven months’ imprisonment. On the basis of this conviction, the Netherlands Royal Constabulary (Koninklijke Marechaussee) included his name on a blacklist provided to airline companies operating direct flights between the Netherlands and Aruba, the former Netherlands Antilles, Suriname and Venezuela. His name was to remain on the list for a period of three years, the aim being to prevent him from reoffending. On 31 December 2009, after having served his sentence, the applicant’s husband was released from prison. His name was removed from the airline blacklist on 2 August 2012. 25. The applicant’s appeal of 7 January 2010 to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) against the judgment of 8 December 2009 of the provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court of The Hague was dismissed on 6 July 2010. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division found that the appeal did not provide grounds for quashing the impugned ruling (kan niet tot vernietiging van de aangevallen uitspraak leiden). Having regard to section 91 § 2 of the Aliens Act 2000, no further reasoning was called for as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring a determination in the interest of legal unity, legal development or legal protection in the general sense. No further appeal lay against this decision. 26. In the meantime, the applicant filed a fifth request on 16 April 2010 for a residence permit with the Minister of Justice (Minister van Justitie) for the purpose of stay with a child, arguing that she should be exempted from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa on grounds of special and individual circumstances. 27. This request was rejected on 11 May 2010 by the Minister, who held that there was no reason to exempt the applicant from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa and that the refusal of a residence permit was not contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. While accepting that there was family life within the meaning of Article 8 between the applicant, her husband and their children, the Minister found that there was no interference with the right to respect for family life as the refusal to grant the applicant’s request for exemption did not deprive her of a residence permit which enabled her to exercise her family life in the Netherlands. 28. As to the question whether the applicant’s rights under Article 8 entailed a positive obligation for the Netherlands to grant her a residence permit, the Minister found that the interests of the Netherlands State in pursuing a restrictive immigration policy outweighed the applicant’s personal interest in exercising her right to family life in the Netherlands. In balancing these competing interests, the Minister took into account the following: already in Suriname and before her arrival in the Netherlands the applicant had been in a relationship with her current spouse; she had entered the Netherlands without having been granted entry clearance for joining her partner as required under the relevant immigration rules; and she had created her family in the Netherlands without holding a residence permit. When it transpired in the course of the proceedings that the applicant was pregnant, the Minister further held that it had not been established, nor did it appear that the applicant would be unable – should hospitalisation be necessary – to give birth in a hospital in Suriname or that there would be any insurmountable objective obstacles to the exercise of family life in Suriname. On this point, the Minister noted that Dutch was spoken in Suriname and that the transition would not therefore be particularly difficult for the applicant’s children, who could continue their education in Suriname in a normal manner. 29. The Minister added that the mere fact that the applicant’s spouse and children were Netherlands nationals did not entail an automatic obligation for the Netherlands authorities to grant the applicant a residence permit, or lead to the conclusion that the exercise of family life would only be possible in the Netherlands. The Netherlands authorities could not be held responsible for the consequences of the applicant’s personal choice to come to, settle and create a family in the Netherlands without any certainty as to her entitlement to permanent residence. In the balancing exercise, the Minister attributed decisive weight to the fact that the applicant had never resided lawfully in the Netherlands and that there was no indication whatsoever that it would be impossible to exercise family life in Suriname. 30. The Minister further rejected the applicant’s argument that she ought to be exempted from the visa requirement, on the basis that inter alia the length of the applicant’s stay in the Netherlands was a consequence of her personal choice to continue to remain there. She had met with several refusals of her applications for a Netherlands residence permit but had nevertheless opted each time to file a fresh request, thus accepting the risk that, at some point in time, she would have to leave the Netherlands, at least, temporarily. The Minister further considered that the applicant had been born and raised in Suriname where she had resided most of her life and, given her age, she should be regarded as capable of returning to and fending for herself in Suriname, if need be with financial and/or material support from the Netherlands, pending the determination of an application for a provisional residence visa to be filed by her in Suriname. The Minister concluded on this point that the case disclosed no circumstances warranting a finding that the decision not to exempt the applicant from the visa requirement constituted exceptional hardship within the meaning of section 3.71 § 4 of the Aliens Decree 2000. 31. On 17 May 2010, the applicant filed an objection against this decision with the Minister. She filed additional grounds for her objection and furnished further information by letters of 20 and 25 May and 8 June 2010. 32. On 2 July 2010, the applicant requested the Regional Court of The Hague to issue a provisional measure (injunction on expulsion pending the outcome of the objection proceedings). 33. On 3 August 2010, following a court hearing held on 28 July 2010 and having regard to pending proceedings taken by the applicant seeking deferral of her removal under section 64 of the Aliens Act 2000 (see paragraph 53 below), the provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Amsterdam rejected the request for a provisional measure on the basis that it was moot. 34. On 19 December 2011 the Minister rejected the applicant’s objection of 17 May 2010. An appeal by the applicant against that decision was rejected on 17 July 2012 by the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Dordrecht. In so far as relevant, its judgment reads: “2.4.1. It must be examined whether the defendant could have refused to exempt the appellant from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa, as required under section 3.71 § 1 of the Aliens Decree 2000, on the ground that removal is not contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. 2.4.2. It is not in dispute between the parties that there is family life between the appellant and her husband and their three minor children. Refusing the application [for a residence permit] does not constitute interference within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. No residence permit which actually enabled the appellant to enjoy family life in the Netherlands has been taken away from her. The subsequent question arises whether there exist such facts and circumstances that the right to respect for family life may be said to entail a positive obligation for the defendant to allow the applicant to reside [in the Netherlands]. In making this assessment, a ‘fair balance’ must be found between, on the one hand, the interests of the alien concerned in enjoying family life in the Netherlands and, on the other, the general interest of the Netherlands State in pursuing a restrictive immigration policy. In this balancing exercise, the defendant has a certain margin of appreciation. 2.4.3. It was reasonable for the defendant to attach more weight to the general interest of the Netherlands State than to the personal interests of the appellant and her family members. The defendant did not have to accept an obligation to grant the appellant residence in the Netherlands on the basis of Article 8 of the Convention. In this balancing exercise, the defendant was entitled to weigh heavily to the appellant’s disadvantage the fact that she had started family life in the Netherlands when she had not been granted a residence permit for this purpose, and that she had further intensified her family life despite the refusal of her requests for residence. This is not altered by the fact that for a certain period the appellant was lawfully resident while awaiting the outcome of proceedings concerning a request for a residence permit. 2.4.4. The defendant was entitled to take the position that the consequences of the appellant’s choices were at her own risk. According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands [no. 50435/99, ECHR 2006‑I]), where family life has started while no residence permit for that purpose has been granted, removal will lead to a violation of Article 8 only in the most exceptional circumstances. The appellant has not established that, as regards her and her family, there are such exceptional circumstances. Her reliance on the judgments in Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer and Nunez v. Norway (no. 55597/09, 28 June 2011) fails, as her situation is not comparable to the one in the cases of Rodrigues da Silva and Nunez. In those cases it was established that the children could not follow their mother to the country of origin. With the removal of the mother, contact with the children would become impossible. However, in the appellant’s case, it has not become sufficiently apparent that her husband and children could not follow her to her country of origin to continue family life there. The appellant has insufficiently demonstrated that her family members will encounter difficulties in entering Suriname. The consequence of her husband’s inclusion on a blacklist is that airlines can refuse to allow him on direct flights from the Netherlands to the Netherlands Antilles, Aruba, Suriname and Venezuela during the period between 2 August 2009 and 2 August 2012. This does not mean that it is self-evident that the husband will not be admitted to Suriname. The appellant has not established that it would be impossible for her husband to travel to Suriname in another manner. In addition, it is important to note that registration on the blacklist is only of a temporary nature. 2.4.5. No other circumstances have appeared on the basis of which the existence of an objective obstacle to continued family life in Suriname must be accepted. There is also no question of excessive formalism. The appellant’s situation is not comparable to the one in the case of Rodrigues da Silva. The defendant has taken the interests of the minor children sufficiently into account in the balancing exercise. The children were all born in the Netherlands and hold Netherlands nationality. At the time the impugned decision was taken, they were respectively eleven, six and one year old. The children have always lived in the Netherlands. Although the oldest child has built up bonds with the Netherlands, the defendant did not have to accept this as a basis for holding that the children could not take root in Suriname. In this connection it is also relevant that Dutch is spoken in Suriname and that both parents hail from Suriname. 2.4.6. This is not altered by the fact that the appellant’s husband and children hold Netherlands nationality and, on the basis of Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter ‘TFEU’), can derive rights from their EU citizenship. It can be deduced from the considerations of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter ‘ECJ’) in the Dereci et al. judgment of 15 November 2011 (C-256/11), in which a further explanation is given of the Ruiz Zambrano judgment of 8 March 2011 (C-34/09), that in answering the question whether a citizen of the EU who enjoys family life with a third-country national will be denied the right to reside in EU territory flowing directly from Article 20 of the TFEU, only a limited importance is given to the right to respect for family life. As follows from paragraphs 68 and 69 of the Dereci judgment, this right is not, as such, protected by Article 20 of the TFEU but by other international, EU and domestic rules and regulations, such as Article 8 of the Convention, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, EU Directives and section 15 of the Aliens Act 2000. In answering this question the desire of family members to reside as a nuclear family unit in the Netherlands or the European Union is, inter alia, also of limited importance. 2.4.7. The situation of an EU citizen being denied the right to reside in EU territory arises only when the EU citizen is so dependent on the third-country national that, as a consequence of the decision by the defendant, he has no other choice than to stay with that national outside EU territory. In the appellant’s case, that has not occurred. The appellant’s children can be cared for by their father. The father also has Netherlands nationality. The appellant’s husband and children are not obliged or actually compelled to go with her to Suriname in connection with the application for a provisional residence visa. Their rights as EU citizens are thus not breached. 2.4.8. It was reasonable for the defendant to take the view that there was no appearance of very special individual circumstances leading to undue hardship. The proceedings concerning the appellant’s previous requests for a residence permit and the course of events during her placement in aliens’ detention for removal purposes cannot be regarded as such. The lawfulness of the decisions taken in those proceedings cannot be examined in the present appeal proceedings. The appellant has further not substantiated her claim that, when she submitted her first request for a residence permit, she complied with all the requirements and that she should then have been granted a residence permit. ...” The Regional Court went on to find that the applicant had not substantiated her alleged medical problems or why these problems should lead to exempting her from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa. The court further found that the applicant had not demonstrated her claim that, apart from the requirement to hold a provisional residence visa, she met all requirements for the issuance of a residence permit. 35. On 14 August 2012, the applicant filed a further appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. No further information about the proceedings on this latest request for a residence permit has been submitted by the parties. 36. On 5 January 2007, the aliens’ police ordered the applicant to report to them on 10 January 2007 so that she could be served with notice to leave the country within two weeks. This order was withdrawn owing to the applicant’s third request for a residence permit filed on 23 January 2007 (see paragraph 19 above). 37. On 26 February 2010, the applicant’s lawyer was informed by the aliens’ police that – as the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 8 December 2009 (see paragraphs 23 and 25 above) did not have suspensive effect – they would proceed with the applicant’s removal. 38. On 10 April 2010, having failed to respond to a summons of 4 March 2010 to report to the aliens’ police, the applicant was placed in aliens’ detention (vreemdelingenbewaring) for removal purposes in accordance with section 59 § 1 (a) of the Aliens Act 2000. She was taken to the Zeist detention centre where she was found to be pregnant, her due date being 14 December 2010. 39. The applicant’s three successive release requests were rejected by the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Rotterdam on 27 April, 1 June and 8 July 2010, respectively. In each decision, the Regional Court found that there were sufficient prospects of expulsion within a reasonable time frame and that the Netherlands authorities were pursuing the applicant’s removal with sufficient diligence. In its rulings, the Regional Court also rejected the applicant’s arguments that her pregnancy rendered her detention contrary to Article 3 and that, against that background, her conditions of detention were incompatible with that provision. In this context, in a letter of 29 June 2010 and addressed to the applicant’s lawyer who submitted it in the proceedings to the Regional Court, the Netherlands section of Amnesty International expressed its concern about the applicant’s placement in aliens’ detention. Although aware that the applicant had failed to respect the duty to report imposed on her, Amnesty International considered that a less severe measure than deprivation of liberty would be appropriate in the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case. 40. In the course of her placement in aliens’ detention, the applicant, on 28 June, 15 July and 3 August 2010, also filed complaints about her conditions of detention with the competent Supervisory Board (Commissie van Toezicht) of the two detention centres where she was held. These complaints were decided in two decisions given on 12 and 29 November 2010, respectively. Apart from the applicant’s complaint of 28 June 2010 that she had been required to wear restraints during transports to hospital, which was accepted as well-founded in the decision of 29 November 2010, the applicant’s complaints were dismissed. On 6 June 2011 the Appeals Board (beroepscommissie) of the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Juvenile Protection (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming) gave final decisions on the applicant’s appeals against the decisions of 12 and 29 November 2010. It held that the use of restraints for pregnant women was impermissible. It also held that the applicant had received too little supplementary nutrition upon arrival at the Rotterdam detention centre. These complaints were considered by the Court in its decision on admissibility of 4 December 2012 (see paragraph 4 above) and were declared inadmissible for the reasons set out therein. 41. The applicant was released from aliens’ detention on 5 August 2010 and her third child was born on 28 November 2010. 42. On 25 September 2012, the Consulate General of Suriname in Amsterdam issued a Surinamese passport to the applicant, which is valid until 25 September 2017. 43. Until 1 April 2001, the admission, residence and expulsion of foreign nationals were regulated by the Aliens Act 1965 (Vreemdelingenwet 1965). Further rules were laid down in the Aliens Decree (Vreemdelingenbesluit), the Regulation on Aliens (Voorschrift Vreemdelingen) and the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines (Vreemdelingencirculaire). The General Administrative Law Act (Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht) applied to proceedings under the Aliens Act 1965, unless indicated otherwise in this Act. 44. Under section 4:5 § 1 of the General Administrative Law Act, an administrative authority may decide not to process a petition where the petitioner has failed to comply with any statutory rule for processing the petition or where the information and documents provided are insufficient for assessing the petition, provided that the petitioner has been given the opportunity to complete the petition within a period fixed by the administrative authority concerned. 45. Under section 41 § 1 (c) of the Aliens Decree 1965, foreign nationals wishing to reside in the Netherlands for more than three months were required to hold, for admission to the Netherlands, a valid passport containing a valid provisional residence visa issued by a diplomatic or consular mission of the Netherlands in the country of origin or permanent residence, or failing that, the nearest country in which such a mission is established. The purpose of the requirement of this visa was, inter alia, to prevent unauthorised entry and residence in the Netherlands. Failing a provisional residence visa, entry and residence in the Netherlands were contrary to the provisions of the Aliens Act 1965. However, lack of a provisional residence visa could not lead to a refusal of a residence permit if, at the time of the application, all the other conditions had been met. 46. On 1 April 2001, the Aliens Act 1965 was replaced by the Aliens Act 2000. On the same date, the Aliens Decree, the Regulation on Aliens and the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines were replaced by new versions based on the Aliens Act 2000. Unless indicated otherwise in the Aliens Act 2000, the General Administrative Law Act continued to apply to proceedings on requests by aliens for admission and residence. 47. According to the transitional rules, set out in section 11 of the Aliens Act 2000, an application for a residence permit which was being processed at the time this Act entered into force was to be considered as an application under the provisions of the Aliens Act 2000. Because no transitional rules were laid down for the substantive provisions of the aliens’ law, the substantive provisions of the Aliens Act 2000 took effect immediately. 48. Section 1 (h) of the Aliens Act 2000, as in force at the material time, provided: “In this Act and the provisions based upon it the following expressions shall have the following meanings: ... (h) provisional residence visa: a visa issued by a Netherlands diplomatic or consular mission in the country of origin or in the country of ordinary residence or by the Office of the Governor of the Netherlands Antilles or by the Office of the Governor of Aruba in those countries, with the prior authorisation of Our Minister for Foreign Affairs, for a stay of longer than three months;” 49. Section 8(a), (f), (h) and (j) of the Aliens Act 2000 states: “An alien is lawfully resident in the Netherlands only: (a) on the ground of a residence permit for a fixed period as referred to in section 14 [of this Act, i.e. a residence permit granted for another purpose than asylum]; ... (c) on the ground of a residence permit for a fixed period as referred to in section 28 [of the Act; i.e. a residence permit granted for asylum]; ... (f) pending a decision on an application for the issue of a residence permit as referred to in sections 14 and 28 in circumstances where, by or pursuant to this Act or on the ground of a judicial decision, expulsion of the applicant should not take place until the decision on the application has been given; ... (h) pending a decision on a notice of objection, review or appeal, in circumstances where, by or pursuant to this Act or on the grounds of a judicial decision, expulsion of the applicant should not take place until the decision on the notice of objection or notice of appeal has been given; ... (j) if there are obstacles to the expulsion as referred to in section 64; ...” 50. Section 16 § 1(a) of the Aliens Act 2000 reads: “1. An application for the issue of a residence permit for a fixed period as referred to in section 14 may be rejected if: (a) the alien does not possess a valid provisional residence visa which corresponds to the purpose of the residence for which application has been made for a residence permit;” 51. Section 27 of the Aliens Act 2000 provides, in its relevant part, as follows: “1. The consequences of a decision rejecting an application for the issue of a residence permit for a fixed period as referred to in section 14 or a residence permit for an indefinite period as referred to in section 20 shall be, by operation of law, that: (a) the alien is no longer lawfully resident, unless another legal ground for lawful residence exists; (b) the alien should leave the Netherlands of his own volition within the time limit prescribed in section 62, failing which the alien may be expelled, and (c) the aliens supervision officers are authorised, after the expiry of the time limit within which the alien must leave the Netherlands of his own volition, to enter every place, including a dwelling, without the consent of the occupant, in order to expel the alien. 2. Paragraph 1 shall apply mutatis mutandis if: (a) it has been decided under section 24 or under section 4:5 of the General Administrative Law Act that the application will not be processed; ...” 52. Section 62 § 1 of the Aliens Act 2000 reads: “After the lawful residence of an alien has ended, he must leave the Netherlands of his own volition within four weeks.” 53. Section 64 of the Aliens Act 2000 provides: “An alien shall not be expelled as long as his health or that of any of the members of his family would make it inadvisable for him to travel.” 54. Section 3.71 § 1 of the Aliens Decree 2000 reads: “The application for a fixed-term residence permit, as referred to in section 14 of the Act shall be rejected if the alien does not hold a valid provisional residence visa.” 55. According to section 3.1 § 1 of the Aliens Decree 2000, a foreign national who has made an application for a residence permit is not to be expelled, unless that application, according to the Minister, merely repeats an earlier application. 56. Under the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000, the obligation for a foreign national to obtain a provisional residence visa allows the Netherlands authorities to check that the foreign applicant meets all the conditions for the grant of that visa prior to his or her entry into national territory. The power to grant a provisional residence visa is vested in the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs. An application for a provisional residence visa is, in principle, assessed on the basis of the same criteria as a residence permit. Only once such a visa has been issued abroad may the holder travel to the Netherlands and apply for a Netherlands residence permit. In the absence of a provisional residence visa, an alien’s entry into and residence in the Netherlands are unlawful. 57. The Netherlands Government pursue a restrictive immigration policy due to the population and employment situation in the Netherlands. Aliens are eligible for admission only on the basis of directly applicable international agreements, or if their presence serves an essential Dutch interest, or for compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature (section 13 of the Aliens Act 2000). Respect for family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention constitutes an obligation under an international agreement. 58. The admission policy for family formation (gezinsvorming) and family reunification (gezinshereniging) purposes is laid down in Chapter B1 of the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000. A partner or spouse of a Netherlands national is, in principle, eligible for admission, if certain further conditions relating to matters, such as, public policy and means of subsistence are met. 59. Pursuant to section 3.71 § 1 of the Aliens Decree 2000, a petition for a residence permit for the purpose of family formation shall be rejected if the foreign petitioner does not hold a valid provisional residence visa. A number of categories of aliens is exempted from the requirement to hold a valid provisional residence visa (section 17 § 1 of the Aliens Act 2000 in conjunction with section 3.71 § 2 of the Aliens Decree 2000), one of these categories being aliens whose removal is contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. In addition, under section 3.71 § 4 of the Aliens Decree 2000, the competent Minister may decide not to apply the first paragraph of that provision if it is considered that its application will result in exceptional hardship (onbillijkheid van overwegende aard). Chapter B1/2.2.1 of the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000 sets out the policy on the application of the hardship clause. 60. Pursuant to Chapter A4/7.6 of the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000, pregnant women are not expelled by aircraft within the six weeks prior to delivery. The same provision applies to any woman in the first six weeks after having given birth. Outside this period, pregnancy – in the absence of medical complications – is not a reason for postponing expulsion. 61. According to section 6:83 of Book 1 of the Netherlands Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), as in force when the applicant married Mr W. on 25 June 1999, cohabitation of spouses was in principle obligatory. This provision was removed from the Civil Code by the Act of 31 May 2001 amending the rights and obligations of spouses and registered partners. This Act entered into force on 22 June 2001. 62. Formerly a country (land) within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Suriname became an independent republic on 25 November 1975. The Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Suriname concerning the assignment of nationality of 25 November 1975, Tractatenblad (Netherlands Treaty Series) 1975, no. 132, [1976] 997 United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS) no. 14598, as amended by the Protocol of 14 November 1994, Tractatenblad 1994, no. 280, in its relevant parts, provides as follows: “Article 2 2. The acquisition of Netherlands nationality pursuant to this Agreement shall entail the loss of Surinamese nationality. Article 3 All Netherlands nationals of full age who were born in Suriname and whose domicile or place of actual residence is in Suriname on the date of the entry into force of this Agreement shall acquire Surinamese nationality. ...” 63. The following information was taken from the Internet web pages of the Surinamese Ministry of Police and Justice (Ministerie van Politie en Justitie), Department of Aliens’ Affairs (Hoofdafdeling Vreemdelingenzaken) and the Surinamese Consulate General in Amsterdam. Aliens subject to visa requirements (visumplichtige vreemdelingen) may enter Suriname on a tourist visa for up to ninety days. If they wish to remain in Suriname for longer, they must first obtain a short-residence visa (machtiging voor kort verblijf, “MKV”) via a Surinamese embassy or consulate in their country of origin. This document enables the alien to request a residence permit after arriving in Suriname. 64. The short-residence visa requirement is waived in respect of aliens of Surinamese origin. They may enter Suriname on a tourist’s travel document and request a Surinamese residence permit after their arrival. This category is defined to include, inter alios, the following: - persons born in Suriname who now have a nationality other than Surinamese; - persons born outside Suriname to parents one or both of whom was, or were, born in Suriname, those persons having or having had legally recognised family ties (familierechtelijke betrekkingen) with said parent or parents, and who now have a nationality other than Surinamese; - the spouse and minor children who actually belong to the family of one of the above. 65. In addition, a multiple-entry tourist visa valid for three years is available for aliens of Surinamese origin (provided that they have not been refused entry into Suriname during the preceding five years). 66. Certain foreign nationals, including Netherlands nationals, may purchase a single-entry “tourist card” which in the case of aliens of Surinamese origin (as defined in paragraph 63 above) is valid for up to six months (ninety days in all other cases). Documents to be submitted are a passport valid for six months or more on arrival, a return ticket and (if applicable) proof of Surinamese origin. 67. On 20 December 2013, the National Assembly of Suriname adopted the Act on Persons of Surinamese Origin (Wet Personen van Surinaamse Afkomst), also known as the Diaspora Act. This Act was published in no. 8 of the 2014 Official Gazette (Staatsblad) of Suriname on 21 January 2014 and entered into force three months after publication. This Act defines a “person of Surinamese origin” as someone who does not hold Surinamese nationality but who is born in Suriname or who has at least one parent or two grandparents hailing from Suriname. Under section 9 of this Act, a person holding the status of “person of Surinamese origin” as defined in this Act has the right to enter Suriname freely and to settle and work there, and the visa requirements that apply to foreign nationals in these areas are waived for a “person of Surinamese origin”. 68. Dutch is the sole official language of Suriname and thus used by government and administration. It is taught in public education. It is also widely spoken in addition to the traditional languages of particular ethnic groups. 69. The applicable rules for family reunification under European Union (“EU”) law differ depending on the status of the person receiving the alien for family reunification purposes. There are three main categories: This situation is covered by Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification. This situation falls within the scope of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. This category falls, in principle, within the remit of Member States and outside the scope of Directives 2003/86 and 2004/38, unless a refusal to admit the TCN would deprive the “static” EU citizen concerned of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of European Union citizen (see paragraphs 71-72 below). 70. Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) reads as follows: “1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship. 2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia: (a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; (b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State; (c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State; (d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language. These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Treaties and by the measures adopted thereunder.” 71. On 8 March 2011 the Court of Justice of the European Union gave its ruling in Case C‑34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), which concerned the right of two Columbian nationals, Mr Ruiz Zambrano and his wife, to reside in Belgium on account of the Belgian nationality of their two minor children who had acquired such nationality due to the fact that they were born in Belgium during a period when their parents had been granted humanitarian protection allowing them to reside in Belgium. However, the parents then lost their protective status in Belgium. In this case, the Court of Justice held as follows: “Article 20 [of the TFEU] is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from refusing a third country national upon whom his minor children, who are European Union citizens, are dependent, a right of residence in the Member State of residence and nationality of those children, and from refusing to grant a work permit to that third country national, in so far as such decisions deprive those children of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of European Union citizen.” 72. In its judgment of 15 November 2011 in Case 256/11, Dereci and Others v. Bundesministerium für Inneres, the Court of Justice examined, inter alia, the question whether Article 20 of the TFEU was to be interpreted as prohibiting a Member State from refusing to grant a right of residence to a national of a non-member country who wished to live with their spouse and minor children, who were European Union citizens resident in Austria and nationals of that Member State, whilst the spouse and children had never exercised their EU right to free movement and were not maintained by the national of a non-member country. It held as follows: “64 ... the Court has held that Article 20 [of the TFEU] precludes national measures which have the effect of depriving Union citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of that status (see Ruiz Zambrano, paragraph 42). 65 Indeed, in the case leading to that judgment, the question arose as to whether a refusal to grant a right of residence to a third country national with dependent minor children in the Member State where those children are nationals and reside and a refusal to grant such a person a work permit would have such an effect. The Court considered in particular that such a refusal would lead to a situation where those children, who are citizens of the Union, would have to leave the territory of the Union in order to accompany their parents. In those circumstances, those citizens of the Union would, in fact, be unable to exercise the substance of the rights conferred on them by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union (see Ruiz Zambrano, paragraphs 43 and 44). 66 It follows that the criterion relating to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of European Union citizen status refers to situations in which the Union citizen has, in fact, to leave not only the territory of the Member State of which he is a national but also the territory of the Union as a whole. 67 That criterion is specific in character inasmuch as it relates to situations in which, although subordinate legislation on the right of residence of third country nationals is not applicable, a right of residence may not, exceptionally, be refused to a third country national, who is a family member of a Member State national, as the effectiveness of Union citizenship enjoyed by that national would otherwise be undermined. 68 Consequently, the mere fact that it might appear desirable to a national of a Member State, for economic reasons or in order to keep his family together in the territory of the Union, for the members of his family who do not have the nationality of a Member State to be able to reside with him in the territory of the Union, is not sufficient in itself to support the view that the Union citizen will be forced to leave Union territory if such a right is not granted. 69 That finding is, admittedly, without prejudice to the question whether, on the basis of other criteria, inter alia, by virtue of the right to the protection of family life, a right of residence cannot be refused. However, that question must be tackled in the framework of the provisions on the protection of fundamental rights which are applicable in each case.” 73. The relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”), signed in New York on 20 November 1989, read as follows: Preamble “The States Parties to the present Convention, ... Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community, Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding, ... Have agreed as follows: ... Article 3 1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. 2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures. 3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision. Article 6 ... 1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. ... Article 12 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. Article 18 1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern. ... Article 27 1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. 2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development. 3. States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right ...” 74. In its General Comment No. 7 (2005) on Implementing child rights in early childhood, the Committee on the Rights of the Child – the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the CRC by its State Parties – wished to encourage recognition by States Parties that young children are holders of all rights enshrined in the said Convention and that early childhood is a critical period for the realisation of these rights. The best interests of the child are examined, in particular, in section 13, which provides as follows: “13. Best interests of the child. Article 3 [of the CRC] sets out the principle that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. By virtue of their relative immaturity, young children are reliant on responsible authorities to assess and represent their rights and best interests in relation to decisions and actions that affect their well-being, while taking account of their views and evolving capacities. The principle of best interests appears repeatedly within the Convention (including in articles 9, 18, 20 and 21, which are most relevant to early childhood). The principle of best interests applies to all actions concerning children and requires active measures to protect their rights and promote their survival, growth, and well-being, as well as measures to support and assist parents and others who have day-to-day responsibility for realizing children’s rights: (a) Best interests of individual children. All decision-making concerning a child’s care, health, education, etc. must take account of the best interests principle, including decisions by parents, professionals and others responsible for children. States parties are urged to make provisions for young children to be represented independently in all legal proceedings by someone who acts for the child’s interests, and for children to be heard in all cases where they are capable of expressing their opinions or preferences; ...” 75. For a fuller discussion, see Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 41615/07, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2010).

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicants are husband and wife. Mr D. Ďurďovič was born in 1942 and lives in Hodonín, the Czech Republic. Ms M. Trančíková was born 1939 and lives in Bratislava. 7. On 2 October 1997 the applicants brought a claim in the Stará Ľubovňa District Court, alleging that they were the owners of real property which had been included in the assets of an insolvent company. 8. On 16 August 2006 the District Court dismissed the claim. With reference to the documents before it and judicial decisions delivered earlier the court established that the property in question had been transferred to the company which had later become insolvent. 9. In an appeal the applicants argued, in particular, that the first-instance court had failed to take evidence, as suggested by them, with a view to establishing that the property had not actually been transferred to the company. They also maintained that the case should have been assigned to a judge dealing with civil cases instead of a judge deciding commercial disputes. 10. On 24 April 2008 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the first‑instance court’s judgment. It found that the applicants had failed to show that the property had been erroneously included in the assets of the insolvent company in the context of the insolvency proceedings. 11. On 9 July 2008 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They argued that there had been shortcomings in the proceedings before the appellate court which rendered the appeal on points of law admissible pursuant to Article 237 (a), (d) and (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. In particular, they alleged that the appellate court had determined the case without hearing the parties and establishing the relevant facts. Earlier consent they had given for the appellate court to proceed with the case in their absence at the hearing of 24 April 2008 did not mean that they accepted the determination of the merits without the parties having been heard. The applicants further argued that the case had been dealt with as a commercial dispute, whereas it should have been determined by judges dealing with civil cases. 13. On 30 November 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. It held that the reasons for its admissibility as invoked by the applicants could not be accepted. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that the applicants had notified the Regional Court that they would not be appearing on 24 April 2008, and that they had agreed with the case proceeding in their absence. The fact that the appellate court had not quashed the first-instance court’s judgment as requested by them could not affect the position. 14. The Supreme Court further held that in the proceedings complained of, the situation described in Article 237 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure did not exist, and that the applicants had not shown that a final decision on the matter had been given earlier for the purposes of Article 237 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. On 8 March 2010 the applicants complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the proceedings leading to the District Court’s judgment of 16 August 2006, the Regional Court’s judgment of 24 April 2008 and the Supreme Court’s decision of 30 November 2009. 16. For reasons invoked in their appeal and appeal on points of law, they complained that their right to a fair hearing by a tribunal established by law had been breached. They also complained that the Supreme Court had not allowed them to respond to the defendants’ comments on their appeal on points of law. 17. The Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on 23 September 2010. As the District Court’s judgment had been reviewed by the Regional Court upon appeal, the Constitutional Court held that it did not have the power to examine the alleged shortcomings in the first-instance proceedings. 18. As to the Regional Court’s judgment, the applicants had failed to submit their complaint within the statutory time-limit of two months. The fact that they had sought redress by means of an appeal on points of law could not affect the position, as the Supreme Court had rejected that remedy as inadmissible. 19. Finally, as to the cassation proceedings, the Constitutional Court found no evidence of unfairness in the way the Supreme Court had dealt with and decided on the applicants’ appeal on points of law. Its failure to let the applicants comment on the other party’s observations on it had not rendered the proceedings unfair in the circumstances.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicants are all Jehovah’s Witnesses, except for the ninth applicant, M. Kvergelidze. Their application to the Court is based on thirty cases of alleged violence and assault to which the applicants were subjected at different times. The applicants lodged approximately 160 complaints with the investigation authorities, including the General Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia (“the GPO”), with a view to criminal proceedings being brought against the perpetrators. The complaints failed to yield any concrete results. 6. At least four acts of religiously motivated violence were allegedly carried out with the direct participation of the police and other representatives of the authorities, while four other cases indicate their indirect involvement. Twelve of the thirty acts of alleged violence described in the application involved assaults on Jehovah’s Witnesses by the group of Orthodox believers run by Mr Basil Mkalavishvili (“Father Basil”), a priest defrocked by the Georgian Orthodox Church (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 11, 3 May 2007). Although in all the cases the applicants complained to the investigation authorities, in only a few of the cases did they receive a written response. In at least fifteen of the cases, when the applicants challenged the inactivity and ignorance of the law enforcement authorities, the courts refused to hear their complaints. In the majority of the cases, the victims reported the original investigation authorities’ indifference and failure to act to the GPO, but the latter took no adequate action. In only three cases were the applicants able to take their complaints right up to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which then dismissed them. 7. The Public Defender of Georgia, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International and national and international media repeatedly reported that Jehovah’s Witnesses had been the target of violence by private and Orthodox religious individuals, the majority of whom had been led by Father Basil, and that the relevant authorities had failed to prevent or stop it. 8. In support of the factual account set out below, the applicants produced the statements of more than 100 victims and witnesses of the alleged violence, photographs of police officers failing to take action while attacks were taking place, photographs of the injured applicants, as well as video recordings and photographs of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ meeting places that had been pillaged and ransacked. To illustrate the situation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Georgia at the material time, the applicants’ representatives also referred to the evidence submitted in two other applications made by Jehovah’s Witnesses before the Court (Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others, cited above, and Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 72874/01, pending before the Court). The following account presents the facts as the applicants claim they occurred. 9. This part of the application concerns applicants K. Pirtskheliani, E. Pirtskheliani, G. Lemonjava, Z. Sartania, N. Pularia, D. Pachkoria, Z. Gogokhia, R. Tskhadaia, B. Tskhadaia, B. Kurashvili, N. Kantaria, L. Esebua, R. Karchava, D. Gulua, T. Biblaia, S. Kintsurashvili, K. Kutaladze, D. Samkharadze, L. Sabashvili and M. Berishvili (listed in the appendix as nos. 40-59). 10. On 23 August 2000, A.T., P.Ch., O.P, Z.G., D.Zh. and V.G., senior officials at the Zugdidi office of the Ministry of the Interior (Western Georgia) drew up a “plan for a protection operation to prevent the meeting of the religious movement of Jehovah’s Witnesses” in the village of Rokhi on 25 August 2000. The plan stated that “unofficial demonstrations against the meeting in question are likely to take place, requiring police intervention to prevent religious conflict.” The aims of the operation were defined as follows: to pick up individuals attending the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ meeting, to identify them for operational purposes, to gather information on the identified individuals by infiltrating their ranks; and to set up permanent and mobile checkpoints on the outskirts of the village of Rokhi, and on the roads around Rokhi and between neighbouring villages. 11. According to the applicants, the Rokhi religious convention was postponed by two weeks because of the on-going negotiations between the meeting organisers and local officials on the security measures to be put in place. 12. On 8 September 2000 a peaceful meeting of some 700 Jehovah’s Witnesses was taking place at the property of K. and E. Pirtskheliani (applicants nos. 40 and 41), when it was suddenly disrupted by the police. According to the applicants, the police opened fire inside their property. Masked police officers entered the house, turned it upside down and removed various items. Around fifty Jehovah’s Witnesses who were present were beaten, including applicants D. Gulua, M. Berishvili, K. Pirtskheliani and K. Kutaladze. E. Pirtskheliani, the aged co-owner of the house, was verbally assaulted and one of the attackers spat in her face. She was also made to watch her house being ransacked and plundered, and the stage set up in the courtyard set on fire. At the same time the police organised around seven buses to drive the participants of the religious meeting off from the scene. 13. Elsewhere, police checkpoints were set up on the main roads to impede a further 1,300 Witnesses – including the applicants B. Kurashvili, R. Tskhadaia and B. Tskhadaia – from reaching the meeting. According to applicant D. Samkharadze, he and L. Sabashvili were allegedly attacked and beaten on their way to the assembly, whilst N. Pularia, R. Karchava, Z. Gogokhia, Z. Sartania, S. Kintsurashvili, T. Biblaia, L. Esebua, and G. Lemonjava escaped physical aggression but were verbally assaulted and humiliated. 14. The applicants lodged complaints with the Samegrelo‑Zemo Svaneti regional prosecutor’s office in September 2000, and criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 178 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia (robbery) on 15 January 2001. The criminal file was sent to the investigation department of the Zugdidi office of the Ministry of the Interior and investigator B.Ch. was put in charge of the investigation. In February‑April 2001 most of the applicants, along with other participants of the 8 September 2000 religious meeting, were questioned as witnesses; none of them was granted formal victim status. It appears that no other investigative measures were taken. 15. On 19 June 2001 the applicants were informed that the investigator had suspended the investigation on 15 April 2001 and that the regional prosecutor had upheld that decision on 20 April 2001. The reason stated was the failure of the investigation to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The applicants referred the matter to the regional prosecutor’s office, complaining that their statements, providing, among other things, the names of several police officers involved in the incident and the number plates of the vehicles used, had been disregarded. The investigator’s decision was set aside on 12 July 2001 and the case was referred back to the same investigator for further inquiries. However, the investigation was subsequently suspended again without the applicants being informed. They did not learn that their case had been closed until the respondent State submitted its observations to the Court in two other applications made by Jehovah’s Witnesses against Georgia on 31 December 2001. Consequently, on 17 January 2002, the applicants contacted the regional prosecutor to obtain a copy of the decision. They received no response. B Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 2 16. This part of the application concerns applicants R. Tsartsidze, M. Gelashvili, R. Botchoidze, V. Gabunia, G. Sagaletovi, S. Bozoyani, Z. Martirosovi, Z. Baidoshvili, Sh. Simoniani and A. Gratiashvili (listed in the appendix as nos. 60-69). 17. According to the applicants, on 16 September 2000 a large number of Jehovah’s Witnesses departed for a meeting in Marneuli (Eastern Georgia). The police had set up checkpoints along the route, blocking the roads and preventing the Witnesses from arriving at their destination. Nineteen buses and several cars stopped by the police were obliged to turn back. Meanwhile, the police allowed a bus carrying Orthodox believers to continue to Marneuli. Upon arrival, the group of Orthodox believers burst into the property belonging to R. Tsartsidze (applicant no. 60) in which the meeting was to be held. They destroyed religious objects and removed items belonging to the owner of the property. The police officers present refused to intervene to protect the Jehovah’s Witnesses and at least some of them went as far as to beat members of the meeting. At least twenty-eight Witnesses were beaten and robbed during the attack. Property belonging to the Witnesses valued at several thousand US dollars was destroyed or stolen. In addition, according to an audit report submitted by the applicants, 1,500 kilograms of religious literature worth several thousand US dollars was burnt on that day. 18. R. Tsartsidze was assaulted and beaten by those who stormed his house, while Sh. Simoniani, G. Sagaletovi, Z. Martirosovi, R. Botchoidze and M. Gelashvili were stopped and beaten by a group of Orthodox believers on their way to the convention site. G. Sagaletovi submitted a medical certificate stating that he had sustained concussion as a result of the beatings. M. Gelashvili sustained bruises around his right eye and on his right knee. It appears that the next day he was further assaulted by two police officers on account of his participation in the events at hand. 19. S. Bozoyani was prevented by the roadblocks from travelling to Marneuli and thus escaped the attack unharmed, while V. Gabunia, Z. Baidoshvili and A. Gratiashvili did not submit any statements with regard to the treatment inflicted on them. 20. On 18 September 2000 the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the GPO. They received no information concerning the progress of their complaint. Therefore, on 24 December 2001, the applicants’ representative contacted the GPO requesting a copy of the decision taken with respect to the initial complaint. The GPO did not respond. On 25 March 2002, the applicants lodged a complaint against the authorities for their failure to reply. Their complaint was dismissed on 2 April 2002 by the Marneuli District Court on the ground that they could not file a complaint against a non-existent decision. 21. This part of the application concerns the applicants I. Papava, E. Baramia, M. Sakhokia, M. Chikovani, T. Todua and Z. Khargelia (listed in the appendix as nos. 34-39). 22. On 3 September 2000, several private individuals, including Z.O., K.T., and U.A., armed with guns and knives, burst into the home of I. Papava in Senaki (Western Georgia) where a meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses was taking place. One of the assailants blocked the door, while the others proceeded to attack the applicants. A gun was pointed at the head of M. Sakhokia and he was punched in the face until his nose, which had been broken, began to bleed. T. Todua was cruelly beaten and a cigarette was stubbed out on his forehead. Z. Khargelia was punched in the face and stomach and threatened with a knife, and M. Chikovani jumped out of a window when one of the attackers took out his gun and pulled the trigger. She was taken to hospital by ambulance and placed in intensive care. I. Papava, the owner of the house, was not at home during the attack, but his wife, E. Baramia, was present and was also assaulted. 23. Along with their statements giving details of the incident, the applicants also provided the Court with a photograph of M. Chikovani, who, after jumping out of the window, sustained an injury to her back and was unable to walk for months, a photograph of M. Sakhokia with a broken nose, and a photograph of T. Todua with a cigarette burn on his forehead. 24. The police officers who arrived at the scene shortly after the incident insulted the victims and refused to record their complaints. On 22 September 2000, the applicants lodged a collective complaint with the city prosecutor. 25. On 15 October 2000, several of the applicants were summoned to give a statement. Their representative subsequently lodged a complaint in respect of the pressure and harassment to which the applicants had been subjected during questioning. He also denounced the investigators’ refusal to organise a medical examination of M. Chikovani and other victims of the attack. 26. On 22 February 2001, the applicants were notified of the decision of 20 December 2000 to take no further action in relation to their complaints. According to the decision, the investigating authorities had concluded that M. Sakhokia’s injuries had been self-inflicted, while M. Chikovani had jumped out of the window “of her own free will”. The decision also stated that the investigative authorities had established that one of the attackers had had a toy gun and had hence concluded that the meeting in question had not been violently disrupted. 27. Following an objection lodged by the applicants on 3 March 2001 with the regional prosecutor, the case was sent to the city prosecutor for further investigation. On 13 November 2001, the applicants went to the public prosecutor’s office to seek information on the progress of their case. They learnt that no further action would be taken and were denied a copy of the decision. On 26 November 2001, the applicants applied to the Senaki Court of First Instance but the judge refused to register their application. It was only following a complaint filed with the Chair of the Georgian Supreme Court that the Senaki court dealt with the applicants’ application on 4 January 2002 and quashed the decision of the public prosecutor’s office to take no action in their case. The case was sent back for additional investigation. Since then, the applicants have received no further news from the investigation authorities. 28. This part of the application concerns the applicants I. Geliashvili, E. Kakhelishvili, K. Javashvili, G. Poladashvili, L. Nozadze, T. Arabidze, B. Saralidze and S. Kvergelidze (listed in the appendix as nos. 26-33). 29. On 16 and 17 August 2000, a large group of Orthodox believers led by Father Basil burst into the courtroom of the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance in Tbilisi, which was dealing with a criminal case against two Jehovah’s Witnesses. The group attacked the applicants, journalists and foreign observers present in the room. The court bailiffs guarding the courtroom did not move or intervene in the confrontation. The group of believers was equipped with big wooden crosses, which they used as weapons. They took control of the courtroom. The lawyer acting for the accused asked for the hearing to be adjourned, but the judge did not allow his request. The court imposed no penalties on the religious believers who had forcibly occupied the courtroom. The attack was filmed and broadcast on the Rustavi 2 and Kavkasia television channels. 30. Applicants E. Kakhelishvili, S. Kvergelidze, L. Nozadze and I. Geliashvili managed to escape the aggression unharmed, while K. Javashvili, G. Poladashvili, T. Arabidze and B. Saralidze, according to their statements, suffered verbal and physical abuse; they were all threatened with being beaten by the big crosses. 31. The applicants lodged various complaints. They were given no information as to the progress of their cases. On 3 July 2002 their lawyer asked for access to the file and discovered that criminal proceedings had been instituted on 17 August 2000 and that on that same day, an investigation unit had been set up. The case had since been assigned to three successive investigating officers. The first two had managed to secure an extension of the investigation period until 17 December 2000 and 17 February 2001 respectively. On 17 February 2001, the investigator responsible had decided to close the case on the grounds that it had been impossible “to identify the perpetrators of the attack”. The applicants pointed out that the video recording of the attack had been broadcast on television and that furthermore, many of the witnesses had recognised Father Basil’s religious group. 32. On 22 March 2001, the decision to take no further action was set aside and the file returned for further investigation. On 3 May 2002, the investigation period was extended to 20 September 2002. Following two years of investigation, none of the attackers was placed under investigation and no decision was served on the applicants and their lawyer. 33. This part of the application concerns the applicant G. Makharoblishvili (listed in the appendix as no. 16). On 29 January 2001, while walking along the road between the villages of Okami and Lamiskana (Eastern Georgia), the applicant was picked up by four private individuals, who were later identified as T.B., G.K., N.P., and J.B. They took him by car to the place of worship of Jehovah’s Witnesses living in Lamiskana. They threatened to kill him unless he crossed himself and went around the site carrying an icon. When the applicant refused, they dragged him into a forest and beat him. They stripped him and took his personal belongings, including religious literature, which they then set alight. They threatened to rape him if he did not do as they ordered. They placed the belt of his own trousers around his neck, dragged him by the hair and forced him to crawl to a sacred rock and kiss it. After an hour and a half, and having been warned not to mention the incident to anyone, the applicant was taken back to the attackers’ car. He was thrown out of the car outside the house of a villager. The villager took care of the applicant for two days until he was able to return home. 34. On 19 February 2002 the applicant reported the incident to the police. In support of his version of events he submitted, along with his detailed statement, a statement of the villager, who had taken care of him. When the attackers learnt that he had done so, they threatened him. The police contacted them and obtained a written undertaking that they would stop intimidating the applicant. The applicant was notified of the decision of 1 June 2001 not to open a criminal case two months later. On 28 August and 24 December 2001, his lawyer lodged an appeal with the regional prosecutor and the GPO respectively. He received no response. On 20 March 2002, the lawyer referred the matter to the Kaspi Court of First Instance. The court informed him verbally that the decision not to institute criminal proceedings would be set aside by the regional prosecutor and that the investigation would go ahead. On 2 April 2002, the regional prosecutor sent the matter for further investigation. Since that date, the applicant has received no further information as to the progress of his case. His lawyer’s requests for information have also been to no avail. 35. This part of the application concerns applicant S. Khojenashvili (listed in the appendix as no. 70). On 16 April 2001, the applicant was allegedly beaten up by V.A., in the Baghdadi region (Western Georgia) because he was a Jehovah’s Witness. The applicant went to the local hospital, which alerted the police. The medical certificate submitted by the applicant stated that he had sustained bruising on the back of his head and abrasions on his face, right cheek, forehead and the back of his left ear. 36. On 18 April 2001, the applicant filed a complaint with the Baghdadi police. He was pressurised on many occasions by the attacker and his family to withdraw his complaint. The police investigated, identified Mr V.A. as the attacker and forwarded the case file to the Baghdadi Court of First Instance. On 5 June 2001, before even questioning the applicant and the prosecution witnesses and after having questioned the defence witnesses, the trial judge decided not to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime. The applicant appealed to the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, which, by a decision of 8 October 2001, upheld the decision of the lower court. Both those courts established that V.A. had not beaten up the applicant while he had been touting his literature, but had merely pushed him to get away from him. The applicant had therefore been injured by falling. On 24 January 2002, the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant. 37. This part of the application concerns applicant V. Dolidze (listed in the appendix as no.10). On 19 April 2000 the applicant, along with some thirty Jehovah’s Witnesses, was celebrating a religious feast in a private house in the city of Lanchkhuti (Western Georgia). Late in the evening some seventy persons approached the house and tried to interrupt the religious gathering. Several of them, who were apparently drunk, including L.Ch. and O.E., the latter being armed with a wooden stick, burst into the house and verbally assaulted the Witnesses; the applicant was physically assaulted by L.Ch. Police intervention was requested and the head of the city police, T.K., arrived but, according to the applicant, only to assist the attackers. He forced the applicant to go to a police station, where the latter was physically assaulted by T.K., insulted by other people, including an Orthodox priest, and threatened with further physical violence unless he stopped practising his religion in Lanchkhuti. He was detained at the police station for about three hours. 38. On 25 April 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint. By a decision of 15 May 2000 an investigator from the Lanchkhuti district prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings owing to the absence of evidence of a crime. He concluded, after having questioned several police officers, that there was no evidence substantiating the applicant’s allegation that T.K. had insulted him. The applicant was not informed of the above decision until 22 March 2001. He immediately appealed, complaining, inter alia, that his initial complaint had concerned not only the conduct of T.K. but also the violent dispersal of the Jehovah’s Witnesses meeting of 19 April 2000 and the physical and verbal assault on him that had ensued. On 22 April 2001 the refusal to institute criminal proceedings was upheld on appeal and no further investigation was ever conducted. The respective decision was served on the applicant only on 19 May 2002. 39. These parts of the application concern the applicants N. Sikharulidze, A. Aptsiauri and G. Gogia (listed in the appendix as nos. 72‑74, case no. 8); G. Markozashvili and L. Markozashvili (nos. 75 and 76, case no. 9); K. Vashakidze, N. Gabisonia, N. Gegia and M. Tchubabria (nos. 77-80, case no. 10); I. Bolotashvili, V. Gugulashvili, A. Toradze and M. Bekauri (nos. 82-85, case no. 11); A. Burjanadze and A. Elbakidze‑Jioeva (nos. 86 and 87, case no. 12); N. Butkhuzi (no. 88, case no. 13); and V. Begheluri and G. Todua (nos. 1 and 2, case no. 14) respectively. 40. On 16 January, 27 November, 19 and 26 December 2000, 8 June 2001, 19 and 26 December 2000, 11 November 2000 and 29 April 2001 respectively the applicants were subjected to various forms of aggressive behaviour because of their faith. A group of Father Basil’s followers in Tbilisi, a group of around thirty followers of Father Tsaava and Father Basilaia in Martvili, and other groups of laypersons followed the applicants in the streets or close to their homes; they insulted them; they attempted to break into their homes by forcing the doors, frightening children who had been left home alone (case no. 9); they tried to force one of the applicants to kiss the cross (applicant no. 80, criminal case no.10); and they seized their religious literature (case no. 14) and burned it (case no. 11). The homes of applicants A. Elbakidze-Jioeva and N. Butkhuzi at which the Jehovah’s Witnesses held their services were burgled and ransacked, and religious objects were stolen (cases nos. 12 and 13). 41. In certain cases, the police were present at the scene but did not intervene to protect the applicants (criminal cases nos. 9 and 10). 42. In all cases, the applicants lodged complaints, but apart from cases nos. 8 and 10, no response was ever received. The applicants contacted the Prosecutor General to obtain a written decision as regards their complaints but they never received a reply. In some cases the courts contacted the public prosecutor’s office themselves requesting written decisions, but received no response. 43. In criminal case no. 8, in reply to a complaint filed by applicants N. Sikharulidze, A. Aptsiauri and G. Gogia (nos. 72-74), the police informed them that they had issued a warning to Father Basil to stop attacking Jehovah’s Witnesses. The applicants requested several times a copy of the written decision not to institute criminal proceedings, but received no response. On 18 June 2002 the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance refused to hear an objection lodged by the applicants on the grounds that they could not validly challenge a non-existent decision. The complaints filed by G. and L. Markozashvili (criminal case no. 9), I. Bolotashvili, V. Gugulashvili, A. Toradze and M. Bekauri (criminal case no. 11), N. Butkhuzi (criminal case no. 13) and V. Begheluri and G. Todua (criminal case no. 14) on 19 March 2002 had the same outcome; On various dates in March-June 2002 the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance refused to examine the applicants’ complaints on the ground that they had failed to submit the decisions of the prosecutor’s office. 44. In criminal case no. 10, the applicants were notified of the prosecutor’s decision of 30 July 2001 to take no further action. This decision was set aside by the court authorities and the case was referred back for further investigation. Subsequently, on 8 May 2002 the Martvili prosecutor upheld the initial refusal to institute criminal proceedings. The prosecutor concluded, on the basis of various witness testimonies, that neither of the Jehovah’s Witnesses had been subjected to verbal or physical abuse during the alleged incident; they had been merely prevented by the local priests and population from attending a religious gathering of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the home of N. Gabisonia (applicant no. 78) in order to avert an escalation of religious conflict in the city. 45. In criminal case no. 12, following several written complaints which have been left unanswered, on 5 June 2002 the head of the local police informed the applicants in person that no investigation had been carried out because they had never received their written complaints. 46. This part of the application concerns the applicant Kh. Japiashvili (listed in the appendix as no. 89). On 6 May 2000, the applicant was travelling to the village of Shakasheti with various religious books belonging either to him or to the local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He was stopped by police officer Z.D. and taken to Agara police station, where the books were confiscated. His attempts to object resulted in verbal abuse and he was released. The applicant returned to the police station some time later accompanied by two other Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were the other owners of the confiscated literature. On arrival, they noticed the charred remains of their books. On 8 May 2000, they lodged a complaint. 47. On 10 June 2002 the applicant was notified of a decision of 23 May 2000 not to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime. 48. This part of the application concerns the applicants K. Gagua and A. Gegelia (nos. 90 and 91). On 30 June 2000, G.Ts., an Orthodox priest, accompanied by several police officers, including B.B., approached K. Gagua, who was sitting on a bus in the city of Martvili, and demanded that he show them his bag. On the instructions of the priest, the police officers confiscated the religious literature and personal documents found in the bag. The applicant filed a complaint at the police station. 49. On 16 July 2000, both applicants were walking through the central square in the village of Didi Chkhoni (Martvili municipality) when they were stopped by a group of fifteen men. The applicants were cruelly beaten because of their faith. The head of the local police, R.A. and two police officers, K.T. and N.A, were close by and witnessed the act of violence, but failed to intervene to protect the victims. On the contrary, they threatened to arrest the applicants. The applicants filed a complaint. In support of his complaint, A. Gegelia submitted a medical report which stated that he had sustained bruises around his left eye, on his forehead and on both thighs. 50. The applicants’ complaints were never followed up. On 24 December 2001, their lawyer contacted the GPO but received no reply. On 29 March 2002, the applicants took legal action in respect of the investigation authorities’ failure to act. On 10 April 2002, the Martvili Court of First Instance refused to hear the complaint on the ground that the applicants could not validly challenge a non-existent decision. On 22 April 2002, the applicants filed the same complaint with the same court. On 16 May 2002, that court responded that the case had been referred back to the prosecutor’s office for a written decision. In reply to their query of 19 August 2002, the responsible investigator informed the applicants that on 28 May 2002 a decision had been taken to close the case. He based his decision on the statements of the alleged perpetrators. He dismissed the medical evidence and concluded that no crimes had been committed. The decision also stated that the time-limit for initiating a private legal action had expired. 51. This part of the application concerns the applicant A. Mikirtumovi (listed in the appendix as no. 97), a Jehovah’s Witness pastor. On 21 September 2000 the applicant was visiting a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Tetritskaro. Having been stopped in the street by unidentified individuals, he was taken to the police station where he was jeered at and insulted. The police threatened to arrest him if he were ever to be seen practising his religion in Tetritskaro again. The applicant was expelled from the town and the bus driver was ordered not to let him off the bus before the terminus in Tbilisi. 52. On 22 September 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint. He received an acknowledgment of receipt but no further information as to the progress of his case. On 24 December 2001, he contacted the GPO asking for a decision. No response followed. On 19 March 2002, the applicant referred the matter to the Tetritskaro Court of First Instance. On 5 June 2002, the first-instance judge informed him that the court’s attempts to obtain the file and the decision from the public prosecutor’s office had failed and that he was therefore unable to investigate his complaint. One month later, the court managed to obtain a copy of the prosecutor’s decision, which it forwarded to the applicant. It appeared from the 30 June 2001 decision that the prosecutor had decided not to initiate criminal proceedings. He concluded, on the basis of the statement of the two police officers involved in the incident, that the applicant had been taken to the police station for his own safety in order to prevent any conflict with the local population. The prosecutor also stated that there was no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s allegations of abuse. 53. The prosecutor’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings was upheld by the Tetritskaro Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia on 20 August and 10 October 2002 respectively. 54. This part of the application concerns the applicant Z. Kvaratskhelia (listed in the appendix as no. 98). On 15 August 2001, the applicant was stopped in a Tbilisi street by police officer N.M., who asked him what he had in his bag. The religious literature and the Bible in his bag were confiscated. The police officer and two passers-by insulted the applicant. On the following day, the applicant went to the police station to request the return of his books and Bible. In response to his request, officer N.M. threw a bag he was holding towards the applicant and kicked him out of the police station. 55. On 21 August 2001 the applicant filed a complaint but received no response. On 24 December 2001, his lawyer contacted the GPO but received no reply. The applicant referred the matter to the Vake-Saburtalo Court of First Instance in Tbilisi. At the hearing of 12 April 2002, the applicant obtained a copy of the decision of the public prosecutor’s office not to institute criminal proceedings dated 5 November 2001. The court set aside that decision and referred the case back to the public prosecutor’s office for further investigation. On 21 June 2002, the applicant’s lawyer tried unsuccessfully to obtain information on the progress of the file. 56. This part of the application concerns the applicants B. Gogoladze, A. Tvaradze and M. Kapanadze (nos. 13, 14 and 15). On 1 April 2001 the applicants were returning from a religious meeting. In the village of Dviri (Borjomi district, Western Georgia), they were attacked by a group of villagers accompanied by Mr S.Kh., and Mr J.B., administrative head of the county town of the district and administrative head of the village respectively. One of the attackers, a private individual, struck B. Gogoladze, who started bleeding and grabbed his bag containing a Bible and other religious literature. The same person then attacked the other two applicants, lashing them with the strap of the bag belonging to Gogoladze. The two administrative heads condoned the violence and insulted the applicants. They then ordered the villagers to stop and left the scene with them. 57. On 5 April 2001 the applicants filed a complaint. On 24 August 2001, they were notified of the decision to close the proceedings. On 6 September 2001, the applicants challenged that decision before the regional prosecutor, who dismissed their action on 1 October 2001. The applicants complained to the GPO on 28 November 2001, but no reply followed. 58. This part of the application concerns the applicants V. Begheluri, I. Janashvili, M. Makievi, Kh. Makieva, E. Tabaghua, E. Begheluri, J. Gogokhia, T. Kolbaia, L. Gelashvili and N. Maisuradze (listed in the appendix as nos. 1, 6 and 17-24). 59. On 28 July 2000 in Tbilisi, followers of Father Basil stopped a bus that was carrying Jehovah’s Witnesses to a religious meeting in Marneuli. They punctured the tyres, forced the applicants along with other Jehovah’s Witnesses out of the bus and assaulted them, verbally and physically. The men, including M. Makievi, E. Begheluri and V. Begheluri, were particularly severely beaten; N. Maisuradze was also personally targeted because she was video recording the attack. In particular, after forcefully getting of the bus, she was chased by two men who assaulted her and then took the camera away from her. They shortly returned to her a broken camera, but the video recording was missing. They also threatened her not to make any recordings in the future. 60. On 31 July 2000 forty-eight Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the applicants, filed a complaint. In August-September 2000 they in addition submitted individual statements detailing the violent incident. On 24 December 2001, their lawyer contacted the GPO asking for a decision to be taken. They received no response. On 19 March 2002, the applicants complained to the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance in Tbilisi of the investigation authorities’ failure to take action, which had amounted to a rejection of their complaint. On 19 June 2002, the court informed the applicants that in the absence of any written decision, their complaint could not be examined. 61. On 15 September 2001 the applicant M. Gaprindashvili (listed in the appendix as no. 99) was walking along a street in the city of Kutaisi, when he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse because of his faith. Notably, he alleged that he had been beaten and insulted by a passer-by while he was distributing religious literature. Accompanied by his attacker, the applicant went to the police station where he was allegedly hit by a police officer, T.K., while other police officers thanked the attacker. In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted the statements of four eyewitnesses. 62. On 19 September 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint. On 12 October 2001, the Kutaisi prosecutor decided not to institute proceedings against the passer-by, identified as L.M., and police officer T.K. Noting that the applicant’s statement and those of the eyewitnesses supporting his version of the events were controversial, the prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of a criminal offence committed by either of them. The applicant challenged that decision. After having questioned the parties concerned, the lower court dismissed the case on the ground that the applicant’s injuries had not been confirmed by a medical report. An appeal by the applicant to the Supreme Court of Georgia was dismissed on 18 June 2002. 63. This part of the application concerns the applicants M. Salukashvili, L. Kikalishvili, V. Burduli and I. Janashvili (listed in the appendix as nos. 3‑6, case no. 22); L. Khitarishvili, N. Kobaidze and M. Kvergelidze (nos. 7-9, case no. 23); E. Gabelaia (no. 81, case no. 24); and S. Barsegyani, I. Dalakishvili-Barsegyani, and T. Arabyani (nos. 12, 92 and 93, case no. 25) respectively. 64. According to the applicants, because of their faith they were subjected to threats, verbal assault and theft of their religious literature and personal belongings while walking in the streets on 13 February 2000, 3 April 2000, 13 July 2000 and 20 June 2001 respectively. The attacks were carried out in different parts of the country. The perpetrators were followers of Father Basil or just laypersons hostile to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most of them were identified by the victims. 65. The applicants in all the cases complained to the police. When filing the complaint, some of them were subjected to verbal abuse by police officers (case no. 22). In response to their complaints, some of the applicants were informed verbally that the police had already warned the attackers to stop abusing Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hence, when E. Gabelaia (case no. 24) complained to the police on 18 July 2000 that she had been repeatedly assaulted by S.G. and his friends, the police limited themselves to contacting S.G. and obtaining a written undertaking that he would stop intimidating the applicant. The latter was informed in this respect verbally by head of police on 20 July 2000. According to the case file, she took no further action in response. 66. The applicants in criminal cases nos. 22, 23 and 25 were not informed of any decision taken by the relevant national authorities in connection with their complaints. The applicants complained to the courts of the inaction of the investigation authorities, but the courts refused to deal with their cases in the absence of a written decision. The respective court decisions were delivered on 3 April (criminal case no. 25) and 18 June 2002 (criminal cases nos. 22-23). 67. This part of the application concerns the applicants V. Marikyani and S. Barsegyani (listed in the appendix as nos. 11 and 12, case no. 26), K. Korchilava (no.71, case no. 27), A. Turkia and T. Galdava (nos. 94 and 95, case no. 28), D. Margiani (no. 96, case no. 29) and G. Kokhreidze (case no. 30). According to the applicants, while walking in the street they were subjected to verbal and physical abuse because of their faith. They were beaten up and their personal belongings were stolen on 3 August and 24 September 2000, 20 June and 1 August 2001, and 19 April 2000 respectively. In support of their version of the events the applicants submitted detailed statements as well as medical evidence where available. 68. Applicants V. Marikyani and S. Barsegyani (criminal case no. 26), who were allegedly beaten by a group of fifteen supporters of Father Basil in a street during daylight hours in Tbilisi, had to seek medical assistance in a hospital. Two days after the attack they filed a criminal complaint with the GPO in which they provided a detailed account of the incident, indicated the number plates of the vehicles involved, and identified two of the alleged attackers by name. While being questioned as witnesses, the applicants were pressured by the police to withdraw their complaint. In a ruling of 9 January 2001 the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance concluded, having regard to the relevant case file, that the assault in question, as a result of which the applicants had sustained minor bodily injuries, had clearly had a religious motive and had been committed by followers of Father Basil. The judge noted, however, that it had been impossible to identify the alleged perpetrators and referred the case file back to the prosecution authorities. As it appears from the materials at hand, the applicants were informed in June 2002 that their case file was subsequently lost. 69. In case no. 27, the applicant was assaulted by a private individual, L.L. He filed a complaint with the local police the day after the attack. He also underwent a medical examination. He resubmitted his criminal complaint to the district prosecutor of Abasha one week later, together with the results of the medical examination. He received a reply on 5 October 2000 stating that criminal proceedings had been instituted. Since then, however, the applicant has not inquired about the progress of the investigation. 70. Applicant A. Turkia (criminal case no. 28) was assaulted by a layperson, M.J., in the city of Abasha on 20 June 2001. The incident was witnessed by applicant T. Galdava, who apparently escaped the attack unharmed. According to Mr Turkia’s statement, he suffered serious physical and verbal abuse and was also threatened with a knife. On 25 June 2001 he filed a complaint with the GPO. Mr Turkia claimed that it was not the first attack of this type involving M.J. On 9 July 2001 the deputy head of the Abasha regional police decided not to follow up the complaint. He concluded, on the basis of the alleged attacker’s statement as well as several eyewitnesses’ depositions, that M.J. had simply asked Mr Turkia to stop disseminating religious literature in the city and that Mr Turkia had suffered no physical injuries. The decision was upheld on appeal by a prosecutor on 23 July 2001. On 24 July 2002 the Abasha District Court judge set aside the prosecutor’s decision. He referred to the results of Mr Turkia’s medical examination, and to a photograph of him taken the day after the alleged incident. He concluded that there was evidence of an offence and remitted the case for further investigation. Applicant Turkia was not informed of the progress of the subsequent investigation. 71. In case no. 29 the applicant, who was verbally and physically assaulted by a group of private individuals, among them M.T. and G.C. residents of the village Narazini (Western Georgia), was informed by police that they had issued a warning to M.T. to stop attacking Jehovah’s Witnesses. A decision was taken not to initiate a criminal investigation. The applicant challenged the refusal. On 4 January 2002 the Zugdidi District Court remitted the case for further investigation. The trial judge concluded that no identification procedure had taken place and that the investigation had disregarded the accusations voiced with respect to G.C. On 23 January 2002 a Zugdidi prosecutor after having questioned the alleged attackers maintained the refusal to open a criminal case owing to the absence of elements of crime. 72. G. Kokhreidze (criminal case no. 30) was assaulted while hosting several Witnesses at a dinner in her home on 19 April 2000. She complained to police claiming that one of the assailants, U.S. had been systematically attacking her. Police informed her that they had warned U.S. and that no proceedings had been instituted. Subsequently, the applicant requested a copy of the written decision not to institute criminal proceedings, but received no response. 73. The relevant parts of Resolution 1257 (2001) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe read as follows: “11. The Assembly ... is also strongly concerned about repeated cases of violence by Orthodox extremists against believers of minority religious groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Baptists. 12. The Assembly urges the Georgian authorities to conduct a proper investigation into all cases of human rights violations and the abuse of power, to prosecute their perpetrators irrespective of their functions, and to adopt radical measures to bring definitively the country into line with the principles and standards of the Council of Europe.” 74. The concluding observations of the UN Human Rights Committee on Georgia, dated 19 April 2002, read as follows: “The Committee notes with deep concern the increase in the number of acts of religious intolerance and harassment of religious minorities of various creeds, particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses. The State party should take necessary measure to ensure the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as provided in Article 18 of the Convention. It should also: (a) Investigate and prosecute documented cases of harassment against religious minorities; (b) Prosecute those responsible for such offences; (c) Conduct a public awareness campaign on religious tolerance and prevent, through education, intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief.” 75. The relevant part of the conclusions and recommendations of the UN Committee against Torture, dated 7 May 2001, reads as follows: “The Committee expresses concern about ... the instances of mob violence against religious minorities, in particular, Jehovah’s witnesses, and the failure of the police to intervene and take appropriate action despite the existence of the legal tools to prevent and prosecute such acts and the risk of this apparent impunity resulting in such acts becoming widespread; ...” 76. In its Report on Georgia dated 22 June 2001, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (“ECRI”) stated: “49. ECRI is deeply concerned at widespread reports of repeated manifestations of violence and harassment against members of minority religions in Georgia. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists and Evangelical Christians appear to have been the most frequent targets of such manifestations in the last two years ... The most recurrent manifestations include the hampering and disrupting of public services and meetings of minority religions as well as the seizure and destruction of property, especially religious literature. However, daily harassment and abuse of members of minority religions, including school children, are also reported to be increasing phenomena. 50. Violent attacks and harassment of members of minority religions are mostly carried out by extremist elements of the Georgian Orthodox community. However, ECRI is seriously concerned not only by the presence of these extremist elements in Georgian society and their activities, but also by the inadequate response of the public authorities to such activities ... 51. As concerns the response of the authorities, despite numerous reports of illegal behaviour committed by the extremist elements of the Georgian Orthodox community, very few prosecutions have so far been carried out with success; law enforcement officials have in many cases remained inactive against the perpetrators. This has resulted in a situation where these extremists act in an atmosphere of relative impunity... 52. ... ECRI believes that this situation is closely linked to the inadequate response of the authorities to the activities of the extremists, which can be misinterpreted by the general public as a sign of official approval of these activities...” 77. The Chair of the delegation of the Parliamentary Committee on Cooperation between the European Union and Georgia, Ms Ursula Schleicher, stated on 5 September 2001: “On behalf of the European Parliament delegation I wish to express my consternation of the latest incident in the series of violent attacks on journalists, human rights activists and Jehovah’s Witnesses which occurred in a courtroom in Tbilisi on 16 August. I regard this kind of act as an outrageous attack against the fundamental human rights to which Georgia is committed as a signatory of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. May I reiterate the position of the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee of 9 May 2001 condemning religious intolerance and nationalist extremism which are incompatible with the long tradition of religious and cultural tolerance in Georgia.” 78. In its 2002 Annual Report, Human Rights Watch stated: “The Georgian authorities allowed organized groups of civilian militants to conduct a sustained campaign of violent assaults and intimidation against members of several non-Orthodox religious faiths, chiefly Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentacostalists, and Baptists. The assailants broke up religious services, beat congregants, ransacked or looted homes and property, and destroyed religious literature. Vasili Mkalavishvili, a defrocked Georgian Orthodox priest who led most of the attacks, justified them by claiming that charismatic faiths were defiling Georgia’s nationhood and religious tradition. He boasted of receiving assistance from the police and security services. Emboldened by inaction or complicity of prosecutors and police, and by a February Supreme Court decision to deregister the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a legal entity in Georgia, the frequency of mob attacks rose in 2001...” 79. In its report entitled “Concerns in Europe: July-December 2000”, Amnesty International stated: “Attacks on Jehovah’s Witnesses In October 1999 police in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, were criticized for allegedly failing to respond when followers of a defrocked Georgian Orthodox priest, Father Basil Mkalavishvili, assaulted members of a Jehovah’s Witness congregation. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have been the focus of hostility from radical supporters of the Georgian Orthodox Church, reported that around 200 people attacked some 120 adherents, including women and children, who had gathered in a rented theatre for a Sunday service on 17 October 1999. The attackers are said to have beaten the worshippers with iron crosses and wooden clubs. A few adherents escaped and reported the attack to local police, who allegedly refused to come to their aid or provide protection. Sixteen worshippers reportedly needed hospital treatment, and the attack prompted widespread condemnation - including from President Eduard Shevardnadze - after extracts from a video of the actions were shown on national television. ... The case came to court on 16 August 2000, at the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court in Tbilisi under presiding judge Tamaz Sabiashvili. Mirian Arabidze stood trial along with another Jehovah’s Witness named Zaza Koshadze, also said to have been a victim of the 17 October 1999 attack, and two female supporters of Father Mkalavishvili. According to reports by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and others, including journalists and human rights monitors, the hearing itself became a focus for more violence by Father Mkalavishvili’s supporters. During a recess on the first day of the hearing, supporters burst into the courtroom and forcibly ejected two Canadian observers, reportedly while security guards watched but did not intervene. The following day, 17 August 2000, Father Mkalavishvili’s supporters also physically assaulted two journalists, a lawyer and foreign observers as they left the courtroom after the hearing was adjourned until 18 September 2000. ... Father Mkalavishvili and his supporters have since carried out further violent attacks on Jehovah’s Witnesses, again with apparent impunity. In at least one case some police officers are said to have joined them in the assaults. On 16 September 2000, for example, a number of buses carrying Jehovah’s Witnesses were reportedly stoned and passengers assaulted outside the town of Marneuli. The Jehovah’s Witnesses had planned to hold a convention there that day. However, police at roadblocks set up that morning were said to have turned back all vehicles carrying Jehovah’s Witnesses, while giving free passage and a police escort to busloads of Father Mkalavishvili’s supporters. In the light of this the convention was cancelled, and delegates on buses were told to return home. At one roadblock, however, some buses returning to Tbilisi were reportedly attacked by a stone throwing crowd. Windows were broken, and one woman passenger was said to have been struck on the head by a rock. According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox supporters also stopped another bus, dragged out three male passengers and beat them. The attackers also entered the bus, shouted insults, and robbed passengers. Police at the scene are said to have supported and participated in the beatings, and also to have joined in the looting and destruction of the site of the cancelled convention. On 8 September 2000 a previous convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses, in Zugdidi, was forcibly broken up by masked police. Earlier that month Jehovah’s Witnesses had reported attacks in two other Georgian cities. On 3 September 2000 members of the Senaki congregation were attacked while gathering in a private home by an armed group of men, and the same day two traffic police officers are said to have assaulted a Jehovah’s Witness on the street in Kutaisi. Yura Papava said that the Senaki congregation was meeting peacefully in his home when a man entered the house and demanded to know what they were doing and teaching. Without waiting for an answer, he and five or six other men started smashing the furniture. The group also pulled out a gun, and burned the presiding minister with a cigarette. Yura Papava said that the congregation contacted the police, ‘but when they arrived they were of little help and began to abuse the attack victims with obscene language.’ ...” 80. According to the 2001 Annual Report by the Public Defender of Georgia: “...freedom of conscience is among the rights which are most brutally violated in Georgia. We are talking about the non-traditional religious organizations, which are dismissed as sects in Georgia and assailed and persecuted every way... I am not dismissing or diminishing the role and influence of the Orthodox Church in our country. The Orthodox Church has always been and will continue to be the fundament on which Georgian statehood and, so to say, the very existence of the nation, rest. However, Georgia has always taken pride in her religious tolerance. It has become a typical example that the temples of different confessions stand and operate almost side by side in the capital of Georgia. Another shining example of tolerance specific to the Georgian nation – the good neighbourly relations and friendship that exist between the Georgians and the Jews have survived millennia. Against such seemingly tolerant background, it is really intolerable to put up with the current tide of extremism against religious minorities. We mean the multiple acts of violence to which the members of such unconventional religious groups as Jehovah’s Witnesses (above all), Baptists, Krishna followers, and others fell victim...” 81. On 13 March 2001 several non-governmental organisations – the Association Law and Freedom, the Atlantic Council of Georgia, the Black Sea Media Institute, Caucasian House, the Forensic Examination Foundation, Former Political Prisoners for Human Rights, the Georgian Young Lawyers Association, the Human Rights Centre, the Human Rights Group of the Caucasian Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, the Independent Journalists’ Club, the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy, the Landowners Rights Protection Association, Liberty Institute, Tbilisi Press Club and Transparency International Georgia, issued a joint declaration stating: “During last two years we are evidencing massive infringement of freedom of religion and persecution of religious minorities. The Government of Georgia is completely unable to protect human rights and minorities. Moreover, violation of human rights take place with the silent consent of the State, very often with its inspiration and sometimes with active participation of State officials, especially those of law enforcement agencies. On the basis of the aforesaid, it should be noted without exaggeration that religious minorities in Georgia face permanent danger, intimidation and terror ..., Jehovah’s Witnesses ... have suffered attacks, persecution, bodily insult and harassment. Frequent pogroms take place in their offices and churches. Their literature, holy objects of worship and other belongings were destroyed ... The most significant pogroms took place in Tbilisi, Marneuli and Zugdidi. Police were aware of these actions without any reaction or were participating in them, while prosecutors and judges convicted the victims. Vasil Mkalavishvili has openly confirmed on TV that he notifies police and security in advance of carrying out his pogroms. Deputy Minister of State Security declared at a Parliamentary hearing that the State should restrict the activities of non-traditional religious sects. Similar declarations have been made by other senior government officials – for example, the Tbilisi police chief...”

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicants are Russian nationals who are close relatives of persons who disappeared after allegedly being arrested by servicemen. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. 6. The applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. The investigations consisted mainly of the authorities making requests for information and formal requests to their counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and Ingushetia and other regions of the North Caucasus to take operational search measures. The requests received negative responses or no replies at all. 7. From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions. 8. In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abductions. 9. Below are summaries of the facts relevant to each individual application. They are based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours and copies of the contents of the criminal investigation files furnished by the Government. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarized below and in the attached table (Appendix I). 10. The applicants are: (1) Mr Gerikhan Sultygov, born in 1972; (2) Ms Fatima Sultygova, born in 1966; (3) Mr Musadi Samrailov, born in 1943, and (4) Ms Maus Nasayeva, born in 1953. The first applicant resides in Chippis, Switzerland. The second applicant lives in Boras, Sweden. The fourth applicant resides in Grozny, Chechnya; prior to his death, the third applicant also lived there. 11. The third applicant, Mr Musadi Samrailov, passed away on 3 February 2013. Mr Viskhan Samrailov, his grandson and the son of Mr Visadi Samrailov, expressed his wish to pursue the application. 12. The first and second applicants are the siblings of Mr Alikhan Sultygov, who was born in 1969. The third and fourth applicants are the father and stepmother of Mr Visadi Samrailov, who was born in 1964. 13. In 2000 the Sultygov family, including the first and second applicants and their children, moved from Grozny to Ingushetia owing to armed hostilities. In the summer of 2000 Mr Alikhan Sultygov returned to Grozny to check on the family house left behind. 14. On the morning of 4 August 2000 Mr D.U. and Mr Alikhan Sultygov drove in the latter’s Volga car to the house of the Samrailov family through checkpoint no. 7 on the outskirts of Grozny. The checkpoint was manned by servicemen of Special Police Forces Unit (OMON) from the Sverdlovsk Region. The servicemen checked Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s and Mr D.U.’s identity documents and let them through. 15. On the way back, after having picked up Mr Visadi Samrailov, the three men were stopped at the checkpoint and detained. Mr Alikhan Sultygov, Mr Visadi Samrailov and Mr D.U. were placed in a UAZ vehicle and taken to the Leninskiy district military commander’s office which was situated in the same building as the Leninskiy district department of the interior (the ROVD). Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s car was driven by one of the servicemen. At the office the three men were blindfolded, their hands were bound and they were put in an APC which took them to the main base of the federal military forces in Khankala. 16. Upon their arrival at the base the three men were put into a pit measuring about two or three metres in depth and about one and a half metres in diameter. The bottom of the pit was covered with stones and broken glass. The three men were not allowed to remove the blindfolds and their hands remained bound; they were not fed, and only given water. The soldiers threw stones at them. 17. On the next day several servicemen took Mr Alikhan Sultygov out of the pit. He never returned. Two days later the servicemen took away Mr Visadi Samrailov. Later on the same date Mr D.U. was also taken out of the pit, driven for about thirty minutes and released on a highway. The abductors told him to keep his blindfold on for thirty minutes and threatened to kill him if he shared any information about the detention. Then Mr D.U. walked to Grozny. 18. The applicants have not seen their relatives Mr Alikhan Sultygov and Mr Visadi Samrailov since 4 August 2000. 19. On an unspecified date in September 2000 the third applicant was questioned about the abduction. He informed the investigators about the details of the events, as related by Mr D.U., including the arrest at the checkpoint and subsequent detention in a pit in Khankala. 20. On 17 March 2001 the investigators questioned the wife of Mr Visadi Samrailov, Ms M.S., whose statement was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the Court. In addition, she stated that along with her husband the servicemen had also arrested Mr Alikhan Sultygov and kept him in the pit and that the first and second applicants were searching for him. 21. On 22 October 2004 the investigators questioned Mr Visadi Samrailov’s sister, Ms M.I., who stated that on 4 August 2000 an employee of the Leninskiy district military commander’s office, Ms Ya.Ya., had told her that Mr Visadi Samrailov had been brought over to their office and then taken to the military base in Khankala. 22. On the same date, 22 October 2004, the investigators also questioned Mr Visadi Samrailov’s mother, Ms A.I., whose statement was similar to that of Ms M.I. In addition, she stated that on 4 August 2000 the district military commander had personally confirmed to her that her son had been brought to their office and detained there until 4 p.m. and then taken to Khankala. 23. On the same date, 22 October 2004 the investigators also questioned the third applicant, whose detailed statement was similar to the ones given by Ms M.I. and Ms A.I. In addition, he stated that at the military base his son, Mr Alikhan Sultygov and Mr D.U. had been kept for several days in a pit and that he had learnt about the details of their detention from Mr D.U. 24. On 25 October 2004 the investigators questioned Ms Ya.Ya., who stated that in 2000 she had worked at the Leninskiy district military commander’s office and that on an unspecified date in August 2000 she had seen, on the premises, Mr Visadi Samrailov, who had been standing in the hallway with his hands above his head against the wall. At the time the district military commander was officer S. Pe. 25. On 10 November 2004 the investigators questioned Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s mother, Ms A.S., whose statement was similar to the one given by the third applicant. In addition, she stated that she had learnt the details of the arrest and the subsequent detention from Mr D.U. 26. On 19 March 2007 Mr D.U. wrote to the investigators providing details of his arrest at the checkpoint and the subsequent detention in Khankala with the applicants’ relatives Mr Visadi Samrailov and Mr Alikhan Sultygov. This information was included in the case file; he was not questioned by the investigators. (b) The main investigative steps taken by the authorities 27. On 7 August 2000 the third applicant was informed by Mr D.U. of the abduction of Mr Visadi Samrailov. From the documents submitted it follows that on an unspecified date prior to 13 September 2000 he complained about the abduction in writing to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office and the Leninskiy ROVD stating that his son had been detained at the checkpoint and then taken to the ROVD and the military commander’s office. 28. At the end of August 2000 Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s mother, Ms A.S., received a note from Mr D.U. stating that her son had been arrested. She immediately went to speak with him; having learnt the details of the arrest and subsequent detention in the pit, she complained thereof to the Grozny military commander’s office. 29. On 17 March 2001 the district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 11094 to investigate the abduction of Mr Alikhan Sultygov and Mr Visadi Samrailov. 30. On 17 March 2001 Mr Visadi Samrailov’s wife, Ms M.S., was granted victim status in the criminal case. 31. On 17 May 2001 the investigation was suspended and on 5 June 2001 it was resumed. The applicants were not informed thereof. 32. On 6 July 2001 the investigators examined the detainee registration log of the Leninskiy ROVD. According to entry no. 262, on 4 August 2000 Mr Visadi Samrailov had been taken to the ROVD and then handed over to colonel Korolev. 33. On 13 August 2003 Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s mother, Ms A.S., wrote to the investigators describing the circumstances of her son’s arrest at the checkpoint, his transfer from the ROVD by colonel Korolev to the military base in Khankala and his subsequent detention with Mr D.U. 34. On 10 November 2004 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 7 August 2006) Ms A.S. was granted victim status in the criminal case. 35. On 29 March 2007 the third applicant wrote to the investigators asking them to resume the proceedings. He also stated that Mr D.U., who had previously refused to give statements to the authorities out of fear for his life, had agreed to be questioned. 36. Between 2001 and 2007 the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. It was last suspended on 5 May 2007. The applicants were not informed thereof. 37. From the documents submitted it follows that on various dates between 2001 and 2007 the applicants and their relatives sent numerous requests to various authorities asking for assistance and information on the search for their relatives. 38. On 9 June 2007 the third applicant requested an update on the progress of the investigation. No reply was received. 39. On 26 October 2009 the investigation was resumed. It is still pending. 40. The applicant, Ms Fatima Bekova, was born in 1963 and lives in Nazran, Ingushetia. 41. The applicant is the mother of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev, who was born in 1982. 42. At the material time the applicant and her son, Mr Ruslan Yandiyev resided in a block of flats at 19 Moskovskaya Street in Nazran, Ingushetia. A block of flats was under construction nearby. 43. On the morning of 29 September 2005 the applicant left for work. At about 9 a.m. on 29 September 2005 Mr Ruslan Yandiyev went to the construction site and met Mr M.-A.B., an acquaintance who worked there. After a while they were joined by Mr I.Kh., another worker from the site, who had arrived in his “Moskvitch” vehicle. The three men went to the workers’ trailer situated at the site. 44. Shortly afterwards two vehicles arrived at the construction site: a silver VAZ-21099 vehicle with a registration number containing the digits “06” and a red VAZ-2107 vehicle with the registration number “586 mr 95”. A group of armed men in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles and broke into the trailer. Most of the armed men were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. Some others wore civilian clothing and spoke Ingush. 45. Having broken into the trailer, the armed men immediately started beating Mr I.Kh. and dragged him outside. When Mr M.-A.B. and Mr Ruslan Yandiyev tried to intervene the armed men took them outside and forced them into their vehicles. They then put Mr I.Kh., unconscious and bleeding, into the boot of one of the vehicles and drove away with the three men. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. 46. The applicant has not had any news from her son, Mr Ruslan Yandiyev since that day. (b) Subsequent events 47. On the following day, 30 September 2005, the applicant arrived at the construction site and learnt about the abduction. She immediately complained thereof to various law-enforcement authorities, including the Ministry of the Interior, the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) and the Nazran town prosecutor. 48. On 14 October 2005 a convoy of four white Gazel minivans, a UAZ minivan (“таблетка”) and some other vehicles, arrived at the construction site. A large group of representatives of law-enforcement agencies searched the site looking for hidden explosives and ammunition. Mr P.E. and Mr P.A., who had been present at the site on 29 September 2005, recognised some of the officers as the latter had participated in the abduction of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev. 49. The Government submitted that on 14 October 2005 a large group of law-enforcement officers had searched the construction site looking for explosives and that on 29 September 2005 no special operations had been conducted to detain Mr Ruslan Yandiyev. 50. On 9 October 2005 the investigators questioned the applicant, whose statement was similar to the one submitted to the Court. In particular, she stated that she had learnt from workers at the construction site that on 29 September 2005 a group of armed men speaking unaccented Russian had arrived at the site in two vehicles, had beaten Mr I.Kh., Mr M.-A.B. and her son up and taken them away. 51. On 28 November 2005 the applicant informed the investigators that she had information concerning the possible identities of the police officers from the special forces unit who on 29 September 2005 had taken away her son and two other men from the construction site and on 14 October 2005 had returned to the site. She requested that those officers be questioned. 52. On 11 August 2006 the investigators questioned Ms F.A., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one furnished by the applicant to the Court. In addition, she stated that on 14 October 2005 a large group of policemen had searched the construction site and that among them had been several officers who had participated in the arrest of the applicant’s son on 29 September 2005 and whom she would be able to identify. On 30 October 2005 another group of policemen had searched the site with metal detectors. 53. On 30 August 2006 the investigators questioned the senior investigator of the Directorate of the Federal Drug Control Service (“the FDCS”), Mr T.S., who submitted that in the autumn of 2005 he had received information concerning explosives hidden at the construction site. He had gone and inspected the site and the trailers with a number of other officers, including officer I.T. They had found nothing of interest. On that date the FDCS officers had used a UAZ-452 minivan (“таблетка”), an armoured Gazel minivan and a VAZ-2105 car. 54. On 10 September 2006 the investigators questioned the deputy head of the FDCS, officer I.T., whose statement was similar to that of the senior investigator T.S. In addition, he stated that upon receiving information concerning hidden ammunition or explosives at the construction site, he had informed his superiors and the regional department of the Federal Security Service about it. Then he had gone to the site with Mr Ib.T., the senior investigator Mr T.S., an expert and officers from the special forces unit of the FDCS. At the site they had been joined by officers from the regional department of the Federal Security Service and the Ingushetia Ministry of the Interior. Nothing of interest had been found during the search and the law-enforcement officers had left the site. About a month later he had again searched the trailer and the site with a group of officers from the service and the police but had found nothing of interest. According to the witness, he had learnt of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev’s abduction at some point later. 55. On 15 September 2006 the investigators again questioned Ms F.A., who confirmed her previous statement and specified that she would be able to identify the abductors. 56. On an unspecified date in September 2006 the investigators questioned officer M.D., the head of the FDCS special forces unit, who stated that in September 2005 his unit had received an order to search the construction site. He had gone there with his group of officers, about forty in total. They had inspected the trailers at the site and the adjacent area. The witness stated that he had no information concerning the abduction. At some point later he had heard that the officers had subsequently returned to the construction site. 57. On 4 April 2008 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who reiterated her previous statements and pointed out that two witnesses, Ms F.A. and Ms P.E., had seen the perpetrators at the construction site during the abduction and then during the search on 14 October 2005 and that both of them could identify the culprits. 58. On 23 April 2008 the investigators again questioned officer M.D., who reiterated his previous statement. 59. On 14 April 2008 the investigators questioned Ms E.P. A copy of her complete statement was not furnished to the Court; its partial contents did not contain information pertinent to Mr Ruslan Yandiyev. 60. On 21 April 2008 the investigators again questioned officer I.T., who reiterated his previous statement. 61. On 22 April 2008 the investigators again questioned Ms F.A., who reiterated her previous statements, gave a detailed description of three of the abductors who spoke Ingush and stressed that she would definitely be able to identify them. 62. On 13 May 2008 the investigators held an identification parade by showing photographs of the potential suspects to Ms F.A. She identified one of them as one of the officers who had been in charge of the search and the abduction of the applicant’s son on 29 September 2005 and who had subsequently returned to the construction site on 5 October 2005. 63. On 21 May 2008 the investigators arranged a confrontation between Ms F.A. and officer M.D., whom the former had identified as one of the perpetrators. Ms F.A. reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that this officer had participated in the abduction. The latter stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in October 2005 but denied any involvement in the abduction. 64. On 26 May 2008 the investigators questioned the applicant, who stated that two men had arrived at her home and threatened to blow her house up if she insisted on further investigation into her son’s abduction. The applicant stated that four officers, that is, Mr M.D., Mr T.S., Mr A.Kh. and the investigator Mr I.T. were suspected of her son’s abduction and that they could have been behind those threats. 65. On 28 May 2008 the investigators questioned a relative of the applicant, Mr M.B., who stated that his nephew Mr Ruslan Yandiyev and two other men had been abducted by law-enforcement officers and that officer I.T. had been in charge of the operation. 66. On 28 May 2008 the investigators held another identification parade by showing photographs of the potential suspects to Ms F.A. She identified one of them as one of the officers who had been in charge of the search at the construction site and the abduction of the applicant’s son on 29 September 2005 and who had subsequently returned to the site on 5 October 2005. 67. On 29 May 2008 the investigators arranged a confrontation between Ms F.A. and officer I.T., whom the former had identified as one of the perpetrators. Ms F.A. reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that he had participated in the abduction. The latter stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in September and October 2005 but denied any involvement in the abduction. 68. On 2 June 2008 the investigators questioned Mr M.B., who stated that he had witnessed the abduction and provided a detailed description of the events similar to the one submitted by the applicant to the Court. In addition, he stressed that the abduction had been perpetrated by law‑enforcement officers M.D. and I.T. 69. On 2 June 2008 the investigators arranged a confrontation between Ms F.A. and officer T.S., whom the former had identified as one of the perpetrators. Ms F.A. reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that he had also participated in the abduction along with officers M.D. and I.T. Officer T.S. stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in October 2005 but denied any involvement in the abduction. (b) Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 70. On 9 October 2005 the Nazran town prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev, Mr M.‑A.B. and Mr I.Kh. The case file was given the number 05560115. 71. On the same date, 9 October 2005, the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 72. On 1 December 2005 the investigators decided to follow up on the applicant’s information of 28 November 2005 concerning the perpetrators’ identities. 73. On 15 September 2006 the investigators informed the applicant that the steps taken had not led to the identification of the perpetrators. 74. On 15 September 2006 the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office, the supervisor of the investigators, informed the applicant that all possible steps to solve the crime had been taken. In particular, from the statements of the FDCS officers questioned by investigators it followed that on 14 October 2005 the officers had indeed inspected the trailer and the site but had not arrested the applicant’s son. 75. On an unspecified date between October 2006 and February 2007 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 19 March 2007 76. On 20 August 2007 the applicant was allowed to access the case file. 77. The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions between October 2005 and August 2007 the applicant complained to various law‑enforcement agencies about her son’s abduction by officers of the Ministry of the Interior, stating that a number of witnesses could identify the abductors, requesting that the investigators take a number of urgent steps to solve the crime and asking to be kept abreast of the progress of the investigation. 78. On 26 May 2008 the applicant complained to the head of the Nazran Town Department of the Interior that the night before two unidentified persons had threatened to blow her house up if she continued to persist with the investigation into her son’s abduction. 79. On 1 July 2008 the FDCS informed the investigators that their internal inquiry had not confirmed that the three officers who, according to witness Ms F.A., had participated in the abduction on 29 September 2005 had actually been present at the construction site on that date. 80. The investigation into the abduction was suspended and resumed on numerous occasions. It was last suspended on 26 June 2009. The investigation is still pending. 81. The applicants, Ms Zeyna Isayeva and Ms Raisa Isayeva, were born in 1950 and 1981 respectively and live in the village of Valerik, Chechnya. 82. The first applicant is the mother and the second applicant is the sister of Mr Nurdi Isayev, who was born in 1979. According to the information submitted by the applicants, Mr Nurdi Isayev suffered from mental problems which had arisen as a result of a head wound sustained during the first military campaign in Chechnya in the 1990s. 83. On the morning of 3 February 2000 Russian security forces started a special operation in Valerik aimed at identifying members of illegal armed groups. As part of the operation the servicemen blocked the perimeter of the village. 84. On the morning of that day about thirty to thirty-five armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in three APCs with obscured registration numbers. The servicemen checked the applicants’ identity documents and opened gunfire. On hearing the shots, Mr Nurdi Isayev ran away and the servicemen started shooting at him. The first applicant ran to the servicemen, asking them not to shoot at her son as he was mentally ill. However, the servicemen did not stop firing and the first applicant saw him fall to the ground. She fainted and was taken by her relatives to a neighbour’s house. 85. On the evening of 3 February 2000, after the servicemen had left the village, the applicants returned home. Their house and their car had been burnt. They did not find Mr Nurdi Isayev at home and did not know what had happened to him. 86. Between 4 and 9 February 2000 the first applicant searched for Mr Nurdi Isayev, but only in Valerik, as the village was blocked for the large‑scale special operation being carried out by the federal forces in the district, including the nearby village of Katyr-Yurt (for the details of the operation see Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, § 74, 24 February 2005, and Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, § 8, 2 December 2010). 87. On 9 February 2000 the first applicant found several items of Mr Nurdi Isayev’s clothing with traces of blood on them and first-aid materials next to them in a field adjacent to the village. The first applicant inferred that her son had been given medical aid. She collected all those objects and subsequently submitted them to the investigators. 88. On an unspecified date in 2002 a neighbour of the applicants’ who had been detained in Chernokozovo remand prison, Ms I., returned home. According to a statement by Ms I. produced by the applicants, while in detention in Chernokozovo she had seen two inscriptions made with a sharp object on the cell wall reading “Nurdi Isayev, village of Valerik” and “3 February 2000”. 90. On 26 February 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose detailed description of the circumstances of her son’s abduction was similar to the one submitted to the Court. In addition, she stated that her neighbour, Mr U.Kh., had also been taken away with her son in the same APC and that the special sweeping-up operation had been conducted by servicemen from the Police Special Task Units of the Penza and Yaroslavl regions. 91. On 26 February 2001 the investigators questioned one of the first applicant’s daughters, Ms R.I., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one given by the first applicant. 92. On various dates in February and March 2001 the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ neighbours, whose statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to that of the first applicant. 93. On 9 June 2005 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who reiterated her previous statement. 94. On 9 June 2005 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Mr U.Kh., who confirmed that he had been abducted by military servicemen along with Mr Nurdi Isayev and taken away in an APC. According to the witness, in the APC he had seen that Mr Nurdi Isayev was in a serious condition as he had sustained gunshot wounds to the head and chest. Mr U.Kh. had been detained for about six days and then released. 95. On 14 March 2007 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who reiterated her previous statements. (b) Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 96. On various dates in 2000 the first applicant complained in person about her son’s disappearance to various State authorities. She described the details of the events and requested assistance in the search for him. Her complaints remained unanswered. 97. On 23 February 2001 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 27009. 101. The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions between 2001 and 2007 the applicants complained of their relative’s abduction to various authorities and requested assistance in the search for him. They received either no replies or replies to the effect that the investigation was in progress. 102. The investigation was further suspended and resumed on several occasions in 2007 and 2008 and for the last time on an unspecified date in 2010. 103. The applicant, Mr Tukhan Idigov, was born in 1933, and lived in the village of Shalazhi, Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. On 5 January 2013 the applicant passed away; his daughter, Ms Tamara Idigova, who was born in 1964 and lives in Grozny, expressed her wish to pursue the application on his behalf. 105. On the night between 3 and 4 May 2003 Mr Anzor Indigov, his parents and wife were sleeping in the applicant’s house on Lenina Street in Shalazhi (also spelt as Salazhi and Shalazi). 106. At about 2 a.m. on 4 May 2003 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks who spoke unaccented Russian broke into the house. The applicant and his relatives thought that the intruders were federal servicemen. Holding the applicant at gunpoint, the servicemen grabbed Mr Anzor Idigov, who was undressed and barefoot, bound his hands, sealed his mouth with adhesive tape and took him away to an unknown destination. Immediately after that two perpetrators returned and ordered the applicant to hand over Mr Anzor Indigov’s identity documents, saying that they were in a pocket of his jacket. 108. On 4 May 2003 the investigators questioned the applicant and the wife of Mr Anzor Idigov, Ms Kh.E., both of whom provided detailed descriptions of the abduction and stated that the abductors had been military servicemen. 109. On the same date, 4 May 2003, the investigators also questioned the applicant’s other son, Mr B.I., whose statement concerning the circumstances of the abduction was similar to those given by the applicant and Ms Kh.E. 110. On 23 May 2003 the investigators again questioned the applicant, Mr B.I. and Ms Kh.E., all of whom reiterated their previous statements. 111. On 15 June 2006 the investigators again questioned the applicant, Mr B.I. and Ms Kh.E., all of whom reiterated their previous statements. (b) Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 118. On 14 August 2007 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan Town Court that the investigation was ineffective and requested that the investigators take a number of necessary steps. 119. On 28 August 2007 the court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the investigators had taken all the relevant steps. 120. From the documents submitted it follows that on several occasions between 2003 and 2007 the applicant complained about the abduction to various authorities. In reply he was either informed that the proceedings were in progress or that his request had been forwarded to another authority. 122. The applicants are: (1) Ms Larisa Saayeva, born in 1971, (2) Ms Mariyat Beksultanova, born in 1953, (3) Mr Islam Saayev, born in 2001, (4) Ms Lala Saayeva, born in 2003, and (5) Ms Iman Saayeva, born in 2005. The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. 123. The first applicant is the wife and the third to fifth applicants are the children of Mr Idris Saayev, who was born in 1978. The second applicant is his mother. 124. At the material time the applicants resided at 14/1 Stantsionnaya Street in Grozny. Their property consisted of two houses with a shared courtyard. 125. On the night between 2 and 3 March 2006 the second applicant and her son Mr Idris Saayev were in one house, whilst the second applicant’s husband, Mr Kh.S., was in the other one. 126. At about 5 a.m. on 3 March 2006 the second applicant woke up and saw a group of six armed men in camouflage uniforms. All of them but one, who was in charge of the group, were masked and wearing bulletproof jackets and spherical helmets. They were armed with submachine guns with silencers and pistols secured at the thighs by special rifle belts. The applicants thought they were federal servicemen. 127. Without any explanation the servicemen requested in unaccented Russian that Mr Idris Saayev produce his identity papers and mobile telephone. They also asked the second applicant about her other son, Mr A.S. Shortly thereafter they took Mr Idris Saayev outside without letting him put on any clothing. When the second applicant and her husband got outside, she saw the perpetrators’ UAZ minivan driving away. 128. At about 6 a.m. on 3 March 2006 the second applicant, her husband Mr Kh.S. and a relative went to the Staropromyslovskiy department of the interior in Grozny (“the ROVD”) to complain about the abduction of Mr Idris Saayev. A police officer told them that Mr Idris Saayev had been detained by the security forces and that he would return home if he cooperated with them and if the applicants did not lodge any official complaints. The second applicant then decided not to lodge a formal complaint, as suggested by the police officer. 129. In the days that followed the applicants applied in person to various State authorities seeking assistance in the search for their relative; none of the law-enforcement agencies admitted arresting or detaining Mr Idris Saayev. 130. About a week later the police officer from the ROVD told the applicants that Mr Idris Saayev had been transferred to Operational Search Bureau no. 2 (“ORB-2”) in Grozny. On the same day the applicants requested information at the bureau but were told that their servicemen had not arrested Mr Idris Saayev. 131. On an unspecified date a certain Mr R.K. told the applicants that Mr Idris Saayev had been abducted by officers of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”). Subsequently, the applicants provided Mr R.K.’s phone number to the investigators (see paragraph 138 below). 133. On 5 April 2006 the investigators questioned the second applicant, whose statement was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the Court. She pointed out that the perpetrators had been Russian servicemen and that she had tried to find her son without recourse to an official investigation but to no avail. She stated that the abductors had called her neighbours’ phone, asked to speak to her, and told her that they would discuss the details of her son’s release with her. When at the end of March 2006 she had arrived at the place of the meeting suggested by them, she had seen a vehicle with servicemen in it who had filmed her and left without demanding anything. Having realised that her efforts to find her son were unproductive, about four weeks after the abduction she decided to lodge an official complaint about it. 134. On the same date, 5 April 2006, the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours Ms Z.I., Mr R.Zh., Mr A.M., Ms A.D. and Mr R.A., all of whom stated that they had not witnessed the abduction but had learnt about it from the applicants. 136. On 20 July 2007 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement was similar to the one given by the second applicant. (b) Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 137. On 5 April 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. The applicants provided the investigators with Mr Idris Saayev’s photo. 138. On 6 April 2006 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) opened criminal case no. 53037. 144. On 15 August 2007 the first applicant complained to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court (“the district court”) stating that the investigation had been unlawfully suspended and requested that the court order the investigators to take effective steps to solve the crime. 146. On 11 September 2007 the district court dismissed the first applicant’s complaint, stating that the investigation had been resumed on 18 August 2007. 152. In 2002 the applicant and Mr Rustam Amerkhanov, who suffered from a brain tumour, resided in the village of Shalazhi (also spelt Shalazi), in the Urus-Martan district. At the material time the settlement was under the full control of the federal forces; a number of military units and law‑enforcement agencies were stationed therein. 154. On the morning of 4 November 2002 the applicant found out that her son had not visited his friend’s house and that on the night between 3 and 4 November 2002 he had been detained by servicemen from the 47th unit of the Special Task Force Division (DON-2) of the Internal Troops of the Russian Ministry of the Interior. 155. On 5 November 2002 the applicant lodged an abduction complaint with the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office. On the same date the interim district prosecutor, Mr D.Z., obtained confirmation from the Urus‑Martan district department of the interior (ROVD) that Mr Rustam Amerkhanov had been brought by servicemen to the ROVD at about 8 a.m. on 4 November 2002 for an identity check and released about three hours later. 156. On the same date the applicant, with two of her relatives and the interim district prosecutor, spoke to the officer in charge of the military unit who had detained the applicant’s son. At first the officer stated that Mr Rustam Amerkhanov had been released shortly after the arrest, but then admitted that he had been taken to the ROVD. 157. On the morning of 6 November 2002 (in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as 4 and 9 November 2002) the interim district prosecutor Mr D.Z. confirmed to the applicant that her son was detained on the premises of the ROVD and that he would be released shortly. The applicant was told to wait for her son outside the ROVD. 158. Later on the same day, at about 4 p.m. the applicant, who had waited since the morning, spoke to the interim district prosecutor Mr D.Z., who told her that her son was not in fact in the ROVD and that his whereabouts were unknown. A week later Mr D.Z., who had been on a service mission in Chechnya, left the Republic to return to the place of his permanent employment. Prior to his departure he told the applicant that the deputy head of the ROVD, Mr V.B., had questioned Mr Rustam Amerkhanov after the arrest. 159. On an unspecified date the applicant contacted Mr V.B. and he confirmed to her that he had interviewed her son, that it had been established that the latter had not participated in illegal armed groups and that therefore her son had been released. 161. In their submission on the facts the Government submitted that Mr Rustam Amerkhanov had been detained by the 47th military unit on the night between 3 and 4 November 2002 and at 7 or 8 a.m. on 4 November 2002 he had been taken to the Special Task Unit (OMON), which was staffed by servicemen from the Omsk region of Russia and was stationed on the premises of the former fruit canning factory. Mr Rustam Amerkhanov was handed over to the head of the OMON unit, officer V.G. 162. At about 9.15 a.m. on 4 November 2002 Mr Rustam Amerkhanov was taken to see the deputy head of the Urus-Martan ROVD, officer V.B., who signed a statement to that effect. At the ROVD the identity of the applicant’s son was verified and he was interviewed. Shortly thereafter, as his involvement in illegal armed groups had not been confirmed, on the same date, 4 November 2002, Mr Rustam Amerkhanov was released. His whereabouts have been unknown since. 163. On 6 November 2002 the investigators questioned officer V. G., who confirmed that his unit had detained Mr Rustam Amerkhanov at about 2 a.m. on 4 November 2002. The officer personally interviewed him and concluded that he was not involved in illegal activities. At about 8 a.m. on 4 November 2002 he received an order from the deputy head of the Urus‑Martan ROVD to hand Mr Rustam Amerkhanov over to the police. At about 9.15 on the same morning the witness brought Mr Rustam Amerkhanov to the deputy head of the ROVD, officer V.B. The witness explained that he had initially told the applicant that her son had not been arrested by his unit as he had been concerned that “it would lead to disturbances among the local residents”. 164. On 6 November 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant, whose statement was similar to the one submitted to the Court. 165. On 11 November 2002 the investigators questioned the deputy head of the ROVD, officer V.B., who stated that between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 4 November 2002 he had interviewed Mr Rustam Amerkhanov and then released him. Operational search officer I.O. had taken Mr Rustam Amerkhanov to the entrance and the latter had left. 166. On 12 November 2002 the investigators questioned the operational search officer Mr I.O., who stated that on the morning of 4 November 2002 Mr Rustam Amerkhanov had been brought to the ROVD and taken to the office of officer V.B., who had interviewed him. After the interview officer V.B. had asked the witness to take Mr Rustam Amerkhanov to the gates and release him. The witness had taken the applicant’s son to the gates and the latter had left. 167. On 15 November 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant, who reiterated her previous statement. In addition, she stated that the deputy head of the ROVD officer V.B. had “blatantly lied” to the investigators that he had released her son on 4 November 2002 as she and two of her relatives, Ms T.A. and Ms Kh.A., and a friend had spent the entire day at the entrance to the building to no avail. 168. On 15 November 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant’s sister, Ms T.A., who confirmed the statement the applicant had given on the same date. 169. On 13 April 2004 the head of the Shalazhi village administration, Mr R.M., submitted a written statement to the investigators which was similar to the one the applicant had given on 15 November 2002. He stressed that for two days officer V. B. had deliberately lied to him and the applicant, denying Mr Rustam Amerkhanov’s arrest, and that this officer must have been responsible for the disappearance of the applicant’s son. 170. On 29 April 2004 the investigators again questioned the applicant’s sister Ms T.A., who reiterated her previous statement. In addition, she stated that a few days after the disappearance of Mr Rustam Amerkhanov officer V.B. had told her husband, Mr N.A., that Mr Rustam Amerkhanov had been transferred to another law-enforcement agency. 171. On 28 May 2004 the investigators again questioned officer V.G., who reiterated his statement of 6 November 2002 and added that on the evening of 4 November 2002 he had spoken to the applicant and confirmed that Mr Rustam Amerkhanov had been apprehended by his unit. (b) Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 172. On 12 November 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 61151 under Article 105 of the Criminal Procedure Code (murder) (in the documents submitted also stated as under Article 126 of the Criminal Procedure Code (abduction)). 175. On 25 September 2003 the investigation was resumed and then again suspended on 25 October 2003. The applicant was not informed thereof. 176. On 13 April 2004 the investigation was resumed and then again suspended on 15 May 2004. The applicant was not informed thereof. 178. On 1 July 2004 the investigators examined two registration logs for the period between August 2003 and July 2004: the first log contained the names of persons taken to the Urus-Martan ROVD and the second log contained the names of those detained on its premises. No entries concerning Mr Rustam Amerkhanov were found. 180. On 5 August 2004 the investigators questioned several of the applicant’s neighbours, all of whom stated that they had learnt of Mr Amerkhanov’s disappearance from others. 181. The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2007 the applicant wrote to various law-enforcement agencies and military authorities, describing the circumstances of her son’s disappearance and the acknowledgement of his arrest by the military and police officers and asking for assistance in establishing his whereabouts. 182. On 6 April 2010 the head of the Urus-Martan ROVD informed the investigators that the registration log of detainees in the ROVD for the year 2002 could not be examined as it had been lost. 184. The applicants are: (1) Ms Lyubov Dubas, born in 1959; (2) Mr Bislan Magomadov, born in 1954; (3) Ms Sara Ozdoyeva, born in 2001, and (4) Mr Riyyadus-Solikhiyn Ozdoyev, born in 2003. The applicants live in the village of Katyr-Yurt, Chechnya. 185. The first and second applicants are the parents of Ms Milana Ozdoyeva, who was born in 1982. The third and fourth applicants are her children. 187. At about 5 p.m. on 26 December 2003 a group of servicemen from a State agency arrived at the applicants’ house in Katyr-Yurt looking for Ms Milana Ozdoyeva. The servicemen had a copy of Ms Milana Ozdoyeva’s identity card with them and asked about her whereabouts. The first applicant explained that her daughter and her husband were living on Sadovaya Street in the village of Sleptsovskaya, Ingushetiya. Then the servicemen left. 188. On 27 December 2003 the first applicant complained to the Achkhoy-Martan Department of the Interior (“the ROVD”) about the servicemen’s visit. The deputy head of the ROVD assured her that it had been a mistake. 190. On 10 January 2004 the first applicant learnt that while she had been at work with her daughter Ms Milana Ozdoyeva at the Achkhoy‑Martan administration, the servicemen had again visited her house looking for her daughter. Then they had gone to the administration and questioned Ms Milana Ozdoyeva on its premises for about thirty minutes. The first applicant learnt from one of the police officers, Mr M.E., that her daughter Ms Milana Ozdoyeva was suspected of planning to become a suicide bomber. (b) Abduction of Ms Milana Ozdoyeva 191. On the night between 18 and 19 January 2004 the applicants, Ms Milana Ozdoyeva and a relative, Mr A.M., were at home at 68 Lenina Street, Katyr-Yurt. 192. At about 2 a.m. on 19 January 2004 a group of about fifteen armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks broke into the applicants’ house. The intruders arrived in several vehicles which they parked nearby; some of them carried portable radios. All the intruders spoke unaccented Russian. The applicants inferred that they were federal servicemen. Having searched the house without giving explanations, the servicemen ordered Ms Milana Ozdoyeva to leave with them. One of the servicemen told the first applicant that her daughter would return later in the morning. 193. The first applicant and Mr A.M. followed the servicemen outside and tried to follow the abductors but they had to return to the house due to the curfew. 195. Shortly after Ms Milana Ozdoyeva had been taken away, early in the morning on 19 January 2004 the first and second applicants complained to the head of the local administration about their daughter’s abduction. 196. Later that morning the first applicant and a relative, Ms A.A., went to the ROVD, where police officers told them that nobody had been brought to the police station that night. The first applicant lodged a written complaint about the abduction with the on-duty officer and then with the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office. 197. On the evening of 19 January 2004 the applicants learnt that the servicemen who had taken Ms Milana Ozdoyeva away had also raided the house of another resident of the village, Mr M.T., but the latter had not been at home. They also learnt that their daughter’s abductors had arrived in a military Ural lorry, which they had parked in the centre of Katyr-Yurt before proceeding to the house on foot. 198. On 26 January 2004 the first applicant saw one of the servicemen who had visited her house on 10 January 2004, Mr S., at the offices of the local administration. He told her that the theory that Ms Milana Ozdoyeva was a suicide bomber had not been confirmed. 199. On 19 January 2004 the investigators questioned the first and second applicants, whose description of the abduction was similar to the one submitted to the Court. 200. On 19 January 2004 the investigators also questioned the applicants’ relative Mr A.M., whose statement concerning the circumstances surrounding the abduction was similar to that of the first and second applicants. 201. On the same date, 19 January 2004, the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours Mr Sh.M., Mr M.M., and Mr A.-Ya. M., all of whom stated that they had learnt of the abduction from the applicants. 202. On 30 January 2004 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who reiterated her previous statement and stressed that among the servicemen who had visited the house in December 2003 looking for Ms Milana Ozdoyeva had been a police officer from the ROVD, Mr M.E., who had told her that Ms Milana Ozdoyeva’s late husband had been an active member of illegal armed groups and that Ms Milana Ozdoyeva herself had decided to become a suicide bomber. 203. On 30 January and 1 February 2004 the investigators again questioned the applicants’ relative Mr A.M., whose statement was similar to that of the first applicant given on 30 January 2004. 204. Between 30 January and 5 February 2004 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours Ms R.K., Mr T.M. and Ms M.I. as well as previously questioned Mr A.-Ya. M., all of whom stated that they had learnt of the abduction from the applicants. 206. On various dates in February 2004 the investigators questioned three operational-search officers from the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD, Mr V.Ch., Mr M.E. and Mr D.I., all of whom stated that on 5 January 2004 officers from a special security service had arrived at their police station and asked the deputy head of the ROVD, officer Sh.P., to assign local police officers to go with them to Katyr-Yurt to speak with Ms Milana Ozdoyeva. Following the orders of the head of the ROVD, the police officers had accompanied the officers from the security service to the applicants’ house, where the latter had questioned Ms Milana Ozdoyeva about her life in Ingushetia, her late husband and whether she had been pressurised to become a suicide bomber. 207. On an unspecified date in February 2004 the investigators questioned the deputy head of the ROVD, officer Sh.P., whose statement was similar to those given by police officers Mr V.Ch., Mr M.E. and Mr D.I. In addition, he stated that the theory of the involvement of the Federal Security Service in Ms Milana Ozdoyeva’s abduction had not been confirmed. (b) Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 208. On 19 January 2004 investigators from the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 211. On 14 February 2005 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court granted the first applicant’s claim and declared Ms Milana Ozdoyeva a missing person. On 14 August 2009 it declared her dead. 212. The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions between 2004 and 2008 the applicants contacted various law-enforcement agencies, military authorities and local courts, asking for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of Ms Milana Ozdoyeva and trying to obtain information about the progress of the investigation. For instance, on 26 February 2008 the first applicant complained to the Achkhoy-Martan District Court about the investigators’ refusal to provide her with full access to the case file. On 30 April 2008 the Supreme Court partially allowed the complaint. 213. The investigation in the criminal case was suspended and resumed on several occasions. The last suspension of the proceedings took place on 10 July 2008. 215. The applicants are: (1) Ms Tamara Shakhbiyeva, who was born in 1955, (2) Mr Khuseyn Shakhbiyev, who was born in 1950, (3) Mr Saifulla Shakhbiyev, who was born in 2000, and (4) Ms Khedi Khizrayeva, who was born in 1980. The first and second applicants live in Tsotsi-Yurt (also referred to as Oktyabrskoe), Kurchaloy district, Chechnya; the third and fourth applicants live in Grozny. 216. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Ezir-Ali Shakhbiyev, who was born in 1974, Mr Abzu (also spelt Abza) Shakhbiyev, who was born in 1977 and Mr Sayd-Magomed Shakhbiyev, who was born in 1978. The third applicant is the son of Mr Ezir-Ali Shakhbiyev and the fourth applicant is his wife. 217. At the material time the applicants resided in a family house together with Mr Ezir-Ali Shakhbiyev, Mr Abzu Shakhbiyev and Mr Said‑Magomed Shakhbiyev. Mr N. Ochayev was also staying in their house as he had been hired by the first and second applicants to work in his excavator on their property. 218. Early in the morning on 4 September 2000 Russian servicemen launched a “sweeping-up” operation in the settlement of Tsotsi-Yurt. The settlement was surrounded by servicemen riding in URAL lorries and military UAZ cars. Helicopters were flying over the area. 219. At around 5 a.m. on 4 September 2000 an APC and several UAZ cars and URAL lorries arrived at the applicants’ house. A group of twenty‑five to thirty masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke in. They blindfolded Mr Ezir-Ali Shakhbiyev, Mr Abzu Shakhbiyev, Mr Said‑Magomed Shakhbiyev and Mr N. Ochayev with torn sheets and took them outside. The servicemen put Mr Ezir-Ali Shakhbiyev in his own VAZ‑2106 car and the other three men in a URAL lorry and drove away. 220. It appears that at least four other men were arrested in Tsotsi-Yurt that morning, including the second applicant’s brother, Mr Khizir Agamerzayev (also referred to as Agmurzayev). A URAL lorry had driven him to the centre of the settlement. 221. Several days later the applicants learnt from anonymous sources that the three Shakhbiyev brothers and Mr N. Ochayev had been taken to the Main Federal Military Base in Khankala, Chechnya. 222. On 13 September 2000 Mr N. Ochayev and Mr Khizir Shakhbiyev and three other Tsotsi-Yurt residents were released at a crossroads on the Rostov-Baku highway in the vicinity of Mesker-Yurt, where they had been brought in an APC. A man from a neighbouring village drove them home. 223. According to Mr Khizir Agamerzayev, after the arrest he, Mr Ezir‑Ali Shakhbiyev, Mr Abzu Shakhbiyev, Mr Said-Magomed Shakhbiyev and Mr N. Ochayev were put in separate cells in a basement. Mr Khizir Agamerzayev was beaten up and questioned about a certain Mr Yakub from Tsotsi-Yurt, the Barayevs and the Akhmadovs, allegedly members of illegal armed groups. On 12 September 2000 in the morning Mr Khizir Agamerzayev had seen the servicemen take the three Shakhbiyev brothers outside and put them in military vehicles. 225. On 14 December 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement concerning her sons’ abduction was similar to the one submitted to the Court. She pointed out that in her opinion the abduction had been perpetrated by military servicemen. 226. On 15 December 2003 the investigators questioned the second applicant, whose statement was similar to the one given by the first applicant. 227. On 25 May 2005 the investigators again questioned the second applicant, who reiterated his previous statement and added that Mr Khizir Agamerzayev had been arrested together with his sons but released sometime later. At some point later Mr Khizir Agamerzayev had moved to Nazran, Ingushetia. 228. On 4 and 5 February 2010 the investigators again questioned the first and second applicants, who reiterated their previous statements. 229. On 9 February 2010 the investigators questioned the son of the first and second applicants, Mr A.Sh., whose statement concerning his brothers’ abduction was similar to the ones given by his parents, the first and second applicants. 230. On various dates between 9 and 24 February 2010 the investigators questioned a number of witnesses, including the first and second applicants’ relatives and neighbours, the fourth applicant, Mr Khizir Agamerzayev and Mr N. Ochayev. All of them gave statements corraborating those given by the first and second applicants. In addition, Mr N. Ochayev and Mr Khizir Agamerzayev provided a detailed description of their detention on the premises of the military base in Khankala after the abduction. Both of them stated that they had been beaten and questioned about their alleged involvement in illegal armed groups and that the Shakhbiyev brothers had remained in detention while they had been released. (b) Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 231. On 11 November 2000 the Kurchaloy ROVD refused to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with the abduction of the three Shakhbiyev brothers as their arrest had taken place during a “sweeping-up” operation. 232. On 11 July 2001 the first applicant again complained about her sons’ abduction. On 13 August 2001 the Kurchaloy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 39051. 233. On 13 October 2001 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 18 November 2003 upon the supervising prosecutor’s orders. 234. On 18 December 2003 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 20 April 2005 upon the supervising prosecutor’s orders. 235. On 25 May 2005 (in the documents submitted the date is also given as 27 May 2005) the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 237. On 14 January 2010 the first applicant requested information on the progresss of the investigation and permission to access the investigation file. 238. On 28 January 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings but refused to grant the first applicant permission to access the case file as she did not have victim status in the criminal case. 241. On 28 April 2010 the investigators granted the first applicant’s request for access to the case file by letting her consult a few documents. 243. The applicants are: (1) Ms Saykhat Dubayeva, who was born in 1953, (2) Mr Shirvani Dubayev, who was born in 1952, (3) Ms Zalina Dubayeva, who was born in 1996, (4) Mr Shamkhan Dubayev, who was born in 1999 and (5) Mr Shamil Dubayev, who was born in 1986. The applicants live in Berkat-Yurt, Chechnya. 244. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Sharpudi (also spelled as “Sharfutdi”) Dubayev, who was born in 1977. The third and fourth applicants are his children and the fifth applicant is his brother. 245. On 20 November 2002 Mr Sharpudi Dubayev and four other men, including Mr R.A. and Mr A.I., were driving in a VAZ-2106 car with the registration number X582 AB95 when, about one and a half kilometres from the village of Berkat-Yurt, they were stopped by a group of about twenty or twenty-five masked military servicemen in camouflage uniforms driving in two APCs. The servicemen belonged to the 34th brigade of the military forces which at the material time guarded the oil pipeline which ran adjacent to the settlement. 246. The servicemen asked the car passengers for their identity documents; then they dragged the men out of the vehicle, forced them into the APCs and took them to the military base where the 34th brigade was stationed. 247. The applicants’ relative, Mr Sharpudi Dubayev, was detained at an unidentified location in the same cell as Mr R. A. According to the latter, both of them were tortured and questioned. 248. On 23 November 2002 all of the detained men, save for the applicants’ relative, were blindfolded, taken to an unidentified location and released, whereas Mr Sharpudi Dubayev has been missing ever since. 249. On 8 September 2003 the investigators questioned the first and second applicant and Mr R.A. Their statements concerning the circumstances surrounding the abduction were similar to those submitted to the Court. 251. On 8 January 2004 the investigators questioned Mr A.I. and Mr R.A. Their statements concerning the abduction were similar to the ones submitted to the Court. 252. On various dates in February and March 2011 the investigators questioned the first applicant and two police officers, whose statements did not provide new information. (b) The main investigative steps taken by the authorities 253. On 28 September 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 42169. 254. In October 2003 the investigators sent information requests to various authorities. On 15 October 2003 the Grozny district department of the Federal Security Service (FSS) informed the investigators that Mr Sharpudi Dubayev was a member of illegal armed groups who had undergone specialized explosives training in a terrorist camp. 258. On 12 April 2008 the investigator examined the cells of the military base where Mr Sharpudi Dubayev and the four other men had been detained in November 2002. 259. On various dates between January 2003 and November 2009 the applicants lodged numerous requests with various prosecutors’ offices and other authorities asking for information on the progress of the criminal investigation and assistance in the search for Mr Sharpudi Dubayev. The replies to their requests were either to the effect that the proceedings were in progress or that the request had been forwarded to another authority. 260. The investigation was suspended on several occasions. It was last suspended on 29 June 2011. The investigation is still pending. 264. On 4 May 2004 at 6 a.m. a large group of armed and masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at Mr Umar Mukhadiyev’s house in two APCs with obscured registration numbers and broke in. Pointing their guns at Mr Magomed-Salakh Tekhiyev and Mr Umar Mukhadiyev, the intruders asked them for their passports. Since Mr Magomed-Salakh Tekhiyev had no passport on him, the servicemen tied his hands behind his back, put him in their APC and drove away in the direction of Avtury. 266. The applicant learnt about the abduction of her son on the same date. She immediately went to the Shali district military commander’s office. Officer Dubovik, the deputy military commander, acknowledged his arrest. He told the applicant that her son and Mr Abdulvakhab Chevchiyev were being detained in Avtury and would be released in three days; however, three days later he said that both men had been taken to the Main Federal Military Base in Khankala and would be released in fifteen days. Fifteen days later officer Dubovik informed the applicant that her son and Mr Abdulvakhab Chevchiyev had absconded on the way to the military base. 268. On 5 May 2004 the investigators questioned the mother of Mr Abdulvakhab Chevchiyev, Ms Ya.Ch., who stated that her son and his friend Mr Magomed-Salakh Tekhiyev had been abducted early in the morning on 4 May 2004 by military servicemen who had arrived in two APCs. 269. On the same date, 5 May 2004, the investigators questioned the applicant, who stated that she had learnt from her relatives and neighbours of the abduction of her son and Mr Abdulvakhab Chevchiyev by military servicemen in APCs. 270. On 8 June 2004 (in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as 8 June 2006) the investigators questioned Mr Abdulvakhab Chevchiyev’s sister, Ms R.D., who provided a detailed description of the abduction which was similar to the applicant’s account submitted to the Court. In addition, she stated that in the afternoon of 4 May 2004 the abductors had returned to the house with her brother Mr Abdulvakhab Chevchiyev, whom they had subjected to beatings in front of their mother, Ms Ya.Ch. They had then searched the garden and left with him again. 271. On 15 and 17 June 2004 the investigators again questioned Ms Ya.Ch. and the applicant, both of whom reiterated their previous statements. Ms Ya.Ch. added that the abductors had returned with her son later the same day and had searched their vegetable garden. 272. On 7 September 2004 the investigators questioned the applicant’s daughter, Ms F.T., and neighbours, Ms T.A. and Ms A.Kh., both of whom gave statements similar to those of the applicant and Ms Ya.Ch. 273. On 16 September 2004 the investigators questioned the Shali district deputy military commander, officer Dubovik, who stated that around 10 May 2004 the applicant and Ms Ya.Ch. had arrived at his office and requested assistance in the search for their sons. He had promised to assist them in the search but had not made any other promises. 274. On 3 December 2004 the investigators questioned the head of the Serzhen-Yurt town administration, Mr Sh.Ch., who stated that after the abduction of Mr Magomed-Salakh Tekhiyev and Mr Abdulvakhab Chevchiyev he and representatives of the prosecutor’s office had tried to gain access to the military unit stationed on the outskirts of Avtury as the two abducted men could have been being detained there. However, they had not been allowed to enter the premises. For the description of the military unit see also Gakayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 51534/08, 4401/10, 25518/10, 28779/10, 33175/10, 47393/10, 54753/10, 58131/10, 62207/10 and 73784/10, § 154, 10 October 2013, Dovletukayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 7821/07, 10937/10, 14046/10 and 32782/10, § 25, 24 October 2013. 276. On 30 April 2011 the investigators questioned the applicant’s son, Mr I.T., whose statement was similar to those of the applicant. In addition, he stated that on the date of the abduction a fellow resident, Mr Bu., had also been abducted and taken to the military unit in Avtury, where he had been detained for three days together with Mr Magomed-Salakh Tekhiyev and Mr Abdulvakhab Chevchiyev. The head of the military unit had been called Sergey and his code name was “Terek-FSB”. According to the witness, at some point later Mr Bu. had left Russia and moved abroad. (b) Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 282. The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions between December 2004 and November 2009 the applicant requested the authorities to assist her in the search for her son, expedite the investigation and provide her with information on the progress of the proceedings. In reply she was either informed that measures were being taken to solve the crime or that her complaints had been forwarded to another authority. 284. On 25 December 2009, upon a request lodged by the applicant on 18 November 2009, the investigators granted her victim status in the criminal case. 286. On 28 April 20011 the applicant requested the investigators to provide her with information on the progress of the proceedings. 287. On 29 April 2011 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 29 April 2009) the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 1 May 2011. 289. The applicants are: (1) Ms Khava Cholayeva, who was born in 1956, (2) Mr Aslan Cholayev, who was born in 1981, and (3) Ms Eliza Cholayeva, who was born in 1980. The applicants live in Argun, Chechnya. 290. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Timerlan Cholayev, who was born in 1978. The second applicant is his brother and the third applicant is his wife. 291. At around 7.30 a.m. on 12 October 2001 a group of masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms, armed with machineguns, arrived at the applicants’ house in Argun in two APCs without registration numbers and broke in. They woke up Mr Timerlan Cholayev, handcuffed him, forced him into one of the APCs and departed to an unknown destination. 292. On the same day an officer of the Argun district military commander’s office acknowledged to the applicants that Mr Timerlan Cholayev had been arrested by their servicemen and taken to the Main Federal Military Base in Khankala. 294. On 4 November 2001 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Ms Ya.I., who stated that on 12 October 2001 a group of military servicemen in APCs had arrived at the applicants’ house and abducted Mr Timerlan Cholayev. 295. On 4 November 2001 the investigators also questioned the applicants’ relatives Mr R.Ch. and Ms R.D., both of whom stated that their nephew Mr Timerlan Cholayev had been abducted by military servicemen. 296. On 29 November 2001 the investigators questioned the third applicant, whose statement about the circumstances of the abduction was similar to one submitted to the Court. In addition, she stated that she and her relatives had followed the abductors and had seen that after having taken her husband they had driven to the Argun military commander’s office. 297. On 11 January 2002 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement was similar to the one submitted to the Court. In addition, she stated that the abductors had told her that they were taking her son in for questioning and would release him afterwards. 298. On 11 January 2002 the investigators again questioned the third applicant and Ms Ya.I., both of whom reiterated their previous statements. 299. On 2 December 2002 the investigators again questioned the first and third applicants, who reiterated their previous statements. In addition, they stated that after the abduction the perpetrators had driven to the premises of special military task force brigade no. 34 of the internal troops (34 ОБРОН). 300. On 3 December 2002 the investigators again questioned the applicants’ relatives Mr M.Ch., Ms R.D. and Ms Ya.I., all of whom reiterated their previous statements. Ms R.D. added that to his knowledge, from the military commander’s office Mr Timerlan Cholayev had been taken to the main military base in Khankala. 302. On 14 September 2004 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who reiterated her previous statements. In addition, she stated that the abductors had been a group of about thirty servicemen who had spoken unaccented Russian. 303. On 17 September 2004 the investigators again questioned the applicants’ relative Mr M.Ch., who reiterated his previous statements. 304. On 11 June 2007 the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative Ms Z.Ch., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the Court. 305. On 11 June 2007 the investigators also questioned the applicants’ neighbours Mr Sh.S., Mr Kh.I. and Ms Z.Zh., whose statements were similar to that of the first and third applicants. 306. On 14 June 2007 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Ms B.E., whose statement did not provide any new information. 307. The documents submitted show that on various dates in June 2007 the police also questioned at least three of the local residents, including the head of the local council of the elders, Mr I.B. None of the statements provided new information. 308. On 19 and 22 October 2010 the investigators again questioned the first and third applicants, both of whom reiterated their previous statements. 309. Between 6 and 12 November 2010 the investigators questioned the second applicant, the applicants’ neighbours Ms M.I. and Mr Kh.I. and the applicants’ relative Ms Z.Ch., whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to that of the first and third applicants. (b) Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 310. On 15 October 2001 the first applicant lodged a written complaint about her son’s abduction with the Shali district prosecutor’s office (in the documents submitted also referred to as the Argun prosecutor’s office). 313. On 23 August, 14 September and 10 November 2004 the military commander’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the investigators that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction had not been established. 317. On 10 October 2003 the investigation was suspended and on 12 September 2004 it was resumed. The applicants were informed thereof. 318. On 12 October 2004 the investigation was suspended. From the documents submitted it follows that on an unspecified date in June 2007 it was resumed and then again suspended. 320. On 6 October 2010 (in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as 15 October 2010) the investigation was resumed. 321. From the documents submitted it follows that on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2010 the applicants contacted the authorities asking for assistance in the search for Mr Timerlan Cholayev and asking for an effective investigation to be conducted into his disappearance. 322. On 23 September 2010 the first applicant complained to the Argun Town Court alleging that the investigation into her son’s abduction was ineffective. On 13 October 2010 the Shali Town Court rejected the complaint on the grounds that the proceedings had been resumed. 324. The applicants are: (1) Ms Layla Titiyeva, who was born in 1943, (2) Ms Khava Medzhidova, who was born in 1998, (3) Ms Medina Akhamdova, who was born in 1962, (4) Ms Zulay Dudurkayeva, who was born in 1940, (5) Mr Ruslan Dudurkayev, who was born in 1968, (6) Ms Makka Dokuyeva, who was born in 1967, (7) Mr Ramazan Dokuyev, who was born in 1973, (8) Ms Zina Akhmedova, who was born in 1968, (9) Ms Khedi Bultayeva, who was born in 1990, (10) Ms Khadizhat Bultayeva, who was born in 1995, (11) Ms Gistam Bultayeva, who was born in 1999 and (12) Ms Khava Dokuyeva, who was born in 1998. The first, second and third applicants live in the settlement of Goryacheistochnenskaya in the Grozny district; the sixth applicant lives in Grozny and the fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants live in Tolstoy-Yurt, Grozny district, Chechnya. 325. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Apti Medzhidov, who was born in 1975, Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev, who was born in 1979, Mr Visarkhan Dokuyev, who was born in 1971, and Mr Alu (in the documents submitted also referred to as Adlan) Bultayev, who was born in 1968. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Apti Medzhidov, the second applicant is his daughter and the third applicant is his sister. The fourth applicant is the mother of Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev and the fifth applicant is his brother. The sixth and seventh applicants are the siblings of Mr Visarkhan Dokuyev and the twelfth applicant is his daughter. The eighth applicant is the wife of Mr Alu Bultayev and the ninth, tenth and eleventh applicants are his daughters. 326. At the material time Mr Apti Medzhidov, Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev, Mr Visarkhan Dokuyev and Mr Alu Bultayev were policemen of the Road Patrol Service (патрульно-постовая служба) of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (the Chechnya MVD). They resided with their families in Tolstoy-Yurt, in the Grozny district. 327. In July 2000 the four men were in Grozny. The town was under curfew and only Russian military vehicles could move around freely. Mr Apti Medzhidov, Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev and Mr Visarkhan Dokuyev were staying at Ms Markha Tatsuyeva’s flat and Mr Alu Bultayev was staying in another flat in the same block of flats. 328. Early in the morning on 16 July 2000 (in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as 17 July 2000) three or four APCs and several UAZ minivans arrived at the block of flats. A group of fifteen servicemen in camouflage uniforms and helmets stormed into the flat where Mr Alu Bultayev was staying, blindfolded and handcuffed him and put him in one of their APCs. The servicemen also arrested Ms Satsyta Sadykova, his neighbour, and put her in the same APC. 329. After that the servicemen broke into Ms Markha Tatsuyeva’s flat to arrest her, Mr Apti Medzhidov, Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev and Mr Visarkhan Dokuyev. The servicemen put the four of them in the same APC with Mr Alu Bultayev and Ms Satsyta Sadykova. They then drove the APC to Khankala. Ms Sadykova heard the sounds of helicopters and military vehicles throughout the one‑hour drive. 330. In Khankala the six arrestees were placed in a detention centre. According to the applicants, the four men were detained there until August 2001 without any official record of their detention. Only Ms Satsyta Sadykova and Ms Markha Tatsuyeva were officially registered as detainees. All of the detainees were kept in pits. Ms Satsyta Sadykova shared her pit with Mr Alu Bultayev. Once they managed to see Mr Apti Medzhidov, Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev, Mr Visarkhan Dokuyev and Ms Markha Tatsuyeva. 331. On 16 July 2000 Ms Satsyta Sadykova was transferred to another detention centre in Khankala and two days later to a remand prison (SIZO) in Rostov‑on-Don. On 21 July 2000 by a decision of the Rostov-on-Don Investigations Unit of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) she was released from detention. According to the decision, Ms Satsyta Sadykova had been arrested on suspicion of terrorist activities, in particular, blowing up a block of flats in Volgodonsk, in the Rostov Region, in September 1999. Ms Markha Tatsuyeva was released from detention on 21 July 2000. 332. Sometime later the applicants were informed by anonymous sources that after August 2001 their four relatives had allegedly been detained in remand prions in Rostov-on-Don, Volgograd, Krasnodar and Chernokozovo. 334. On 25 December 2000 the investigators questioned the sixth applicant, whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the Court. 335. On 30 December 2000 the investigators questioned the brother of Mr Alu Bultayev, Mr A.B., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the Court. 336. On 26 January 2001 the investigators again questioned the sixth applicant, who reiterated her previous statement and added that Ms Tatsegova had told her that she had been detained in a pit in Khankala and then in a lorry for three days and had then been taken to the remand prison in Rostov-on-Don. According to the witness, she had learnt that her brother Mr Visarkhan Dokuyev had been abducted by servicemen from the Special Task Force Unit staffed by policemen from the Khanty-Mansiyisk Region of Russia. 337. On 2 May 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one furnished to the Court. In addition, she stated that immediately after the abduction she had spoken to her son’s supervisor, officer A.M., who had told her that her son, along with three colleagues Mr Visarkhan Dokueyv, Mr Alu Bultayev and Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev, had been arrested by servicemen from the Main Intelligence Service (the GRU) and that the four men had been taken along with several women, including Ms Satsyta Sadykova, to the premises of the main military base in Khankala and detained in pits. 338. On 15 August 2004 the investigators questioned the eighth applicant, whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted to the Court. In addition, she stated that as soon as they had been released from detention, Ms Satsyta Sadykova and Ms Markha Tatsegova had gone to the applicants’ houses and informed them of their detention, together with their relatives, in pits in Khankala. 339. On 16 August 2004 the investigators questioned the fourth applicant, whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted to the Court. 340. On various dates in May and June 2005 the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ fellow villagers. No new information was obtained. 341. On various dates in July 2007 the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ relatives. No new information was obtained. 342. On 26 July 2007 the investigators questioned Ms Satsyta Sadykova, who provided a detailed description of the abduction and her subsequent detention in a pit in Khankala, where she had seen Mr Apti Medzhidov, Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev, Mr Visarkhan Dokuyev and Ms Markha Tatsuyeva. 343. On various dates in September and October 2007 the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ neighbours and the residents of the block of flats where the abduction had taken place. No new information was obtained. 344. On various dates in August 2009 the investigators questioned several people living in the area where Mr Apti Medzhidov had lived in 2000. No new information was obtained. (b) Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 345. On 6 November 2000 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 12239 on account of Mr Alu Bultayev’s abduction. 346. On 25 December 2000 the prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 12355 on account of the abduction of Mr Viskharan Dokuyev. On the same date the sixth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 349. The documents submitted by the Government show that at some point between 2000 and 2004 the investigation of the criminal case was extended to include the abduction of Mr Apti Medzhidov and Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev. The investigation files were referred to under numbers 12239, 12355 and 10075. 352. Between 2001 and 2005 the investigation into the abductions was suspended on several occasions. For instance, the investigation was suspended on 28 May 2005, resumed on 15 June 2005 and suspended again on 15 July 2005. 353. On 6 May 2006 the investigators stated in a procedural decision that it was established that the applicants’ four relatives had been “abducted by unidentified servicemen belonging to power structures and then taken to [the main military base in] Khankala”. The investigators stated that Ms Satsyta Sadykova and Ms Markha Tatsuyeva had been arrested together with the four men, detained in Khankala and then transferred to the premises of the Rostov-on-Don FSB and that on 21 July 2000 both women had been released. 356. On 16 July 2007 the investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ four relatives was joined to the investigation into the abduction of Ms Satsyta Sadykova. The joint investigation file was given the number 12239. 361. On an unspecified date in July 2009 the first applicant wrote to a local human rights organisation asking for assistance in the search for her son Mr Apti Medzhidov. On 11 August 2009 that request was forwarded to the investigators. 362. On an unspecified date in June 2011 the eighth applicant wrote to a local human rights organisation asking for assistance in the search for her husband, Mr Alu Bultayev. On 27 June 20011 the request was forwarded to the investigators.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Izmayil. 5. On 28 November 2012 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having murdered Mr S. earlier the same day. 6. On 30 November 2012 the investigating judge of the Reni Local Court of the Odessa Region ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 27 January 2013. 7. On 25 January 2013 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 27 February 2013. 8. On 26 February 2013 the indictment in the applicant’s case was approved. 9. On 27 February 2013 the indictment and the criminal case file were forwarded by the prosecutor to the court. 10. On 28 February 2013 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Head of the Izmail SIZO to release the applicant immediately given that the period of detention ordered by the court had expired on 27 February. By a letter of the same day, the Head of the Izmail SIZO replied to the applicant’s lawyer that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, after the forwarding of the criminal case file to the trial court it was for that court to decide on the applicant’s continued detention. 11. The same day the lawyer complained to the prosecutor about the failure of the prison authorities to release the applicant. In reply to that letter, the Odessa Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been extended in January 2013 until 27 February 2013 and that on the latter date the criminal case file against the applicant had been forwarded to the trial court; the prosecutor’s office therefore considered that the applicant’s rights and interests had not been violated. 12. On 11 March 2013 the lawyer submitted a request to the investigating judge for the applicant’s release. He noted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention ordered by the judge had expired on 27 February 2013 and that no decision had been taken on the applicant’s continued detention. 13. On 14 March 2013 the investigating judge rejected the above request. With reference to Article 331 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), the judge noted that on the last date of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, that is, on 27 February 2013, his criminal case had been referred to the trial court, which had two months to decide on his continued detention. The judge concluded that there had been no grounds for the applicant’s release on 28 February 2013. 14. On 25 March 2013 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 14 March 2013. 15. On 15 April 2013 the Izmayil Local Court of the Odessa Region held a preliminary hearing in which it ordered the applicant’s continued detention. 16. On 5 November 2013[1] the applicant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The first applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Petrozavodsk, in the Republic of Kareliya. The second applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Mezen, in the Arkhangelsk Region. 6. The first applicant was an employee of the municipal unitary enterprise “Avtokolonna 1126” (Auto Transport Column 1126) in Petrozavodsk, the Republic of Kareliya. 7. “Avtokolonna 1126” was set up by a decision of the administration of the Town of Petrozavodsk (“the town administration”). It provided public transport services in the town on a commercial basis. The company had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to it by the town administration in order to carry out its statutory activities. Legal provisions on the status of municipal unitary enterprises and the right of economic control are summarised in paragraphs 55‑75 below. 8. At the request of the company, on 29 December 2001 the town administration withdrew unspecified assets of an aggregate value in excess of 25,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) from the company’s economic control and immediately allocated them to the same company for temporary use free of charge under a loan agreement. 9. Under several agreements between the company and the town administration, including one dated 21 January 2002, the company undertook to provide transport services to certain sections of the population free of charge, and the town administration was to reimburse it for the expenses incurred out of the budget allocated for that purpose by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kareliya or the federal budget. According to a letter from the Committee of Housing and Communal Services of Petrozavodsk dated 19 March 2003, at some point the respective budgets accumulated a considerable debt towards the company owing to a shortage of funds. Consequently, the company was unable to pay its employees in due time. The town administration requested the legislative body of the Republic of Kareliya to consider the allocation of additional funds to cover the company’s debt in 2004, but to no avail. 10. On an unspecified date the administration ordered the restructuring of the company in the form of a spin-off and transferred the assets mentioned in paragraph 8 above to the newly created municipal unitary enterprise “Avtokolonna 1126 Plus”. The debt accumulated in respect of the unpaid salaries was not transferred and remained with the applicant’s employer. 11. On 6 July 2003 the Commercial Court of the Republic of Kareliya declared the respondent company insolvent, and a liquidation procedure commenced. 12. The applicant sued her employer for salary arrears. 13. On 20 June 2003 the Petrozavodsk Town Court awarded her RUB 5,421.89 in salary arrears, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and court expenses. The judgment was not appealed against and became final ten days later. On 4 July 2003 the bailiffs’ service received the writ of execution in respect of the award. 14. On 22 June 2003 the applicant was dismissed from the company in view of its upcoming liquidation (see paragraph 10 above). 15. By a final judgment of 25 November 2003 the Petrozavodsk Town Court granted her new action and ordered the respondent company to pay her RUB 19,445.53 in salary arrears for a different period of time, severance pay and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant obtained a writ of execution in respect of the award. 16. By a final judgment of 16 April 2004 the same court, in separate proceedings, awarded the applicant RUB 4904.95 in compensation for loss of salary, based on the average wage, and compensation for non‑enforcement of the above-mentioned two judgments as well as non‑pecuniary damage. On 17 May 2005 the writ of execution was forwarded to the bailiffs’ service. 17. At some point the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of at least two judgments (22 June 2003 and 16 April 2004) and forwarded the writs to the liquidator. 18. By separate judgments of 21 and 24 June 2004 and 12 and 13 August 2004 the Commercial Court of the Republic of Kareliya ordered the Federal Treasury and the Republican Treasury to reimburse the company the cost of the transport services it had provided free of charge under the respective agreements (see paragraph 9 above) and rejected a similar claim against the town administration. 19. At some point the liquidator received the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 25 November 2003. 20. According to the liquidator’s notes on the respective writs of execution, at some point the applicant received RUB 4,358.98 of the amount awarded on 20 June 2003, RUB 8,782.78 of the amount awarded by the judgment of 25 November 2003 and RUB 4,604.95 of the award made on 16 April 2004. The remainder of the judgment debts has not been paid to the applicant. 21. On 4 October 2006 the Commercial Court of the Republic of Kareliya discontinued the insolvency proceedings and ordered the respondent company’s liquidation. The creditors’ claims, which had not been satisfied during the liquidation procedure, including the remainder of the applicant’s claims, were considered as settled. On 15 October 2006 the liquidation was recorded in the Register of Legal Entities, and the company ceased to exist. 22. In 2005 the applicant lodged an action against the town administration, claiming that it was liable to repay her the remaining judgment debt plus compensation for the delayed enforcement of the court orders and non-pecuniary damage. She argued that the insolvency of the debtor company had been caused by the actions of the town administration. First, it had failed to reimburse the expenses the company had incurred for providing transport services, as stipulated by the respective agreements (see paragraph 9 above). Second, the company’s inability to meet the creditors’ claims had been caused by the transfer of the assets to a different company carrying out the same functions. As a result, the debtor company had become unable to continue to carry out its activities as defined in its articles of association. 23. On 21 January 2005 the Petrozavodsk Town Court dismissed the action. The court established that the federal and republican authorities owed the applicant’s former employer RUB 1,883,370 for services provided at a reduced price. However, with reference to the Commercial Court’s findings (see paragraph 18 above) the court concluded that the debt had been accumulated as a result of the federal and republican authorities’ inaction and therefore it could not be attributed to the town administration. As regards the transfer of the assets, the court found as follows: “The restructuring («реорганизация») of the municipal unitary enterprise ‘Avtokolonna 1126’ in the form of a spin-off and the creation of a separate unitary enterprise, ‘Avtokolonna 1126 Plus’, was within the property owner’s rights. [The applicant] failed to prove the existence of a causal link between the restructuring ... and the enterprise’s insolvency”. 24. The court further observed that, in any event, the applicant’s claim was premature, since the insolvency proceedings had been underway at the material time. On 22 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic upheld the judgment on appeal. 25. Once the debtor enterprise was liquidated, the applicant lodged a similar claim with the Justice of the Peace of the 10th Court Circuit of Petrozavodsk. In addition to her earlier submissions (see paragraph 22 above) she reiterated that the debtor company had reported to the owner and the latter had been fully aware of its financial difficulties. However, no measures had been taken to remedy the situation. 26. On 21 May 2007 the Justice of the Peace rejected her claims, largely referring to the findings of the Petrozavodsk Town Court of 21 January 2005 (see paragraph 23 above). She found that even though the liquidation proceedings had been terminated, the applicant had failed to adduce any additional evidence to demonstrate that the owner had caused the company’s insolvency. The Justice of the Peace noted that the company had been a separate legal entity liable for its debts with all its assets, and therefore rejected the applicant’s argument about the town administration’s inaction as irrelevant. 27. On 12 September 2007 the Petrozavodsk Town Court endorsed those findings as regards both the failure of the authorities to compensate the cost of the transport services and the restructuring of the company. The court noted, in addition, that the withdrawal of the assets on 29 December 2001 had taken place pursuant to the company’s own request and that, moreover, those assets had been returned to it for free temporary use, which had permitted it to continue its activities. The court further found the applicant’s arguments about the authorities’ inaction ill-founded and emphasised that the applicant had failed to submit evidence in support of her claims. 28. The applicant was an employee of the municipal unitary enterprise “Zhilishchno-Kommunalnoye Khozyaystvo of Mezen” (“Housing and Communal Service of the Town of Mezen”, hereafter “the company”) in the Arkhangelsk Region. 1. Available information on the debtor company and the beginning of the liquidation procedure (a) The company’s articles of association and activities 29. The company was set up by decision of the administration of the Mezen District. It had the right of economic control over the assets allocated to it by the district in order to meet its statutory objectives. In accordance with the company’s articles of association, it was a commercial organisation performing the following activities, among others: renovation and maintenance of the municipal housing stock; heating and water supply; maintenance of the sewage systems in Mezen; cartage and passenger transport; funeral services; maintenance of municipal boiler plants, artesian wells and related infrastructure, as well as heating supply systems; production of fast-moving consumer goods; and disposal of dry waste and household waste, 30. According to its articles, the assets of the company consisted of the profit generated by its activities, capital investments, and grants from the federal, regional and local budgets and other sources. The company’s financial resources were made up of profits, amortisation charges, loans and other revenues, as well as “grants from the local budget to cover any losses incurred through the provision of housing and communal services”. 31. The company planned its activities and development itself. It proposed prices and the tariffs for its products and services in accordance with the domestic legislation and submitted them to the district administration for approval. The plans were based on contracts with consumers, including State bodies and suppliers, “concluded on a commercial basis”. (b) Employees’ salaries 32. The basic salaries of the employees of the housing and communal sector for 2005-07 were set by the Sectoral Tariff Agreement for the Housing and Communal Sector of the Russian Federation (Отраслевое тарифное соглашение по организациям жилищно-коммунального хозяйства Российской Федерации) concluded between the employees of the “essential public services sector” represented by the trade union, and the employers, represented by the Communal Enterprises Union. The agreement applied to the municipal authorities that empowered the parties to make such an agreement, as well as to all entities operating in the housing and communal sector, unless they explicitly refused to apply it. No such refusal was made by the applicant’s employer. (c) Available information on tariffs for heating supply 33. The district administration was responsible for setting the tariffs of the company’s services and was also a major consumer of its services. The tariffs in place until 2005 were based on 5 per cent profitability. According to the submissions of the director of the company which employed the applicant in the subsidiary liability proceedings brought by the applicant (see paragraph 48 below), as a result of the application of those tariffs the enterprise had become unprofitable; the loss in profits amounted to RUB 300,000 and was not reimbursed by the administration. The administration failed to pay RUB 2,500,000 for the company’s services. According to its director, the company was put in a difficult financial situation as a result of the actions of the owner. (d) Restructuring of the company 34. On 23 December 2005 the Head of the Mezen district administration ordered the restructuring of the company in the form of a spin-off, creating a new municipal unitary enterprise “MUP ‘Mezenskiye Teplovyye Seti’ (Mezen Heating Supply Systems) of the Mezenskiy District” (hereafter, “MUP ‘MTS’”). 35. On the spin-off balance sheet approved by the Head of the Mezen district administration on 20 April 2006, the unpaid salary debt was not transferred to the newly created company. 36. On 24 May 2006 the Head of the Mezen district administration ordered the withdrawal of coal and all other assets, except for the company’s authorized capital, from the company’s economic control and their allocation to MUP “MTS”. The director of the company which employed the applicant became director of MUP “MTS”. 37. On 13 July 2006 the Head of the Mezen district administration ordered the applicant’s employer’s liquidation. 38. On 29 May 2007 the Commercial Court of the Arkhangelsk Region declared the respondent company insolvent, and the liquidation procedure was set in motion. 39. The applicant sued his employer for salary arrears, claiming that his salary rate was below that provided for in the respective Sectoral Tariff Agreement (see paragraph 32 above). The liquidator accepted the claims. On 19 June 2007 the Justice of the Peace of the Court Circuit of the Mezen District of the Arkhangelsk Region awarded the applicant RUB 80,892.63 in salary arrears against his employer. 40. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 41. On 16 July 2007 the bailiffs’ service initiated the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment. On 19 July 2007 the bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings and forwarded the writs of execution to the liquidator. 42. At some point before 1 February 2009 (date of the liquidator’s report, see paragraph 45 below) the applicant’s claims were included in the second priority line of the register of creditors’ claims. (b) Application to the Arkhangelsk Commercial Court 43. According to the Government, on 1 October 2007 the applicant petitioned the Commercial Court of Arkhangelsk with a request to order the liquidator to enforce the judgment in his favour. 44. On 4 October 2007 the court returned the petition unexamined, referring to section 60 of the Insolvency Act (see paragraph 120 below). The parties have not submitted a copy of any document produced by the court in that respect, or a copy of the applicant’s petition. (c) The company’s liquidation 45. On 1 February 2009 the liquidator produced a report stating, inter alia, that the assets of the debtor company had not been found and the receivables had not been established, “for lack of financial records”. 46. On 24 February 2009 the Commercial Court of Arkhangelsk terminated the insolvency proceedings and ordered the respondent company’s liquidation. The creditors’ claims which had not been satisfied during the liquidation procedure due to the debtor’s shortage of funds, including the applicant’s claims, were considered as settled. The court further ordered that the enforcement proceedings in respect of that debt be terminated. 47. The applicant lodged a court action against various respondents claiming, inter alia, that the town administration was liable to repay him the unpaid judgment debt, as well as compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage resulting from the non-enforcement. He argued that the insolvency of the debtor company had been caused by the actions of the district administration. 48. On 16 September 2009 the Mezenskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region heard the parties, including the applicant, the district administration representative and the head of the liquidated company who was, at the time of the events, employed as the director of MUP “MTS” (see paragraph 34 above) and granted the applicant’s claims in part. The court reiterated that the debtor company had been set up by the district administration, which, as its owner, had been entitled to decide on its restructuring and liquidation under Article 295 § 1 of the Civil Code. The owner could not be held liable for the insolvent company’s debts unless the insolvency had been caused by the owner’s actions. The court established that as a result of the administration’s tariff-setting policy (see paragraph 33 above) the company had been put in a pre-insolvency situation. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the district administration had withdrawn all assets from the company except for its authorized capital, which resulted in the company’s inability to continue its activity in accordance with the goals and objectives assigned to it. With reference to the Court’s case-law (Shlepkin v. Russia, no. 3046/03, 1 February 2007; Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia, no. 13820/04, 12 April 2007; and Aleksandrova v. Russia, no. 28965/02, 6 December 2007) the District Court found that the administration had subsidiary liability for the insolvent company’s debts, ordered that the judgment debt be recovered from the district administration at the expense of the district treasury and rejected the remainder of the applicant’s claims. In particular, the court found that the newly created company was not liable for the debts of the applicant’s employer since they had not been transferred to it in the spin-off procedure. 49. On 17 December 2009 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The regional court found that it was for the applicant to demonstrate that the insolvency had actually been caused by the owner’s actions. However, he had failed to do so. Turning to the tariff-setting issue (see paragraph 33 above), the regional court noted that under the domestic law the owner was not obliged to finance the company directly. The regional court further considered that the assets had not actually been withdrawn from the company which employed the applicant, but that the company itself had transferred them to the newly created company on the spin-off balance sheet after the restructuring. There was nothing in the case to suggest that the lawfulness of the transfer of the assets had at any point been challenged in court. Furthermore, Russian employment law had not contained any provisions on the subsidiary liability of owners for the debts of municipal unitary enterprises. On the other hand, the first-instance court had failed to examine the issue of MUP “MTS”‘s liability for the debts of the restructured company. 50. On 19 February 2010 the Mezenskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s claims. The court found that, as a result of the withdrawal of all assets from MUP “MTS”, the latter had become unable to continue its activities, which indeed constituted a reason for its insolvency. However, the court went on to find that “... the insolvency occurred through no fault of the owner, since they [sic] had been bound by the federal law. Therefore, one of the criteria for the application of subsidiary liability, namely, fault on the part of the owner, is missing.” 51. In so far as the applicant’s claims for compensation for delayed enforcement were concerned, the court noted, in addition, that he had failed to raise that issue before the main debtor, that is, the employer company, and was therefore prevented from making such claims in the subsidiary liability proceedings. Lastly, the claims lodged against the newly created company could not be granted since the debt in respect of the salary arrears had not been transferred to it. 52. The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the liquidator had not been heard by the first-instance court and the documents on the debtor company’s remaining assets had not been available to him. 53. By a final judgment of 6 May 2010 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the lower court’s findings of 19 February 2010 on appeal. The regional court rejected the applicant’s argument regarding the unavailability of the company’s documents as irrelevant, having noted that the claimant had to demonstrate that the insolvency had been caused by the owner’s actions and not by the company’s own management “and, in any event, not vice versa”. The court endorsed the remainder of the lower court’s findings.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in St Petersburg. 6. On the morning of 23 April 1999 the pregnant applicant, after her contractions had started, was taken by ambulance to the gynaecology ward of the S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy Hospital. 7. Following her admission, she was handed a booklet issued by the hospital which contained, among other things, a notice warning patients about their possible involvement in the clinical teaching taking place at the hospital. The notice read: “We ask you to respect the fact that medical treatment in our hospital is combined with teaching for students studying obstetrics and gynaecology. Because of this, all patients are involved in the study process.” 8. The exact time at which the booklet was handed to her is unclear. 9. At 9 a.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor, who established that she was forty weeks pregnant and that there were complications with the pregnancy because she had mild polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid). The doctor noted that the applicant’s contractions appeared premature and that she was suffering from fatigue. In view of these symptoms, she was put in a drug-induced sleep, which lasted from 10 a.m. to 12 noon. 10. At 2 p.m. the applicant’s doctor again established that the contractions had been premature and prescribed her anti-contraction medication to suppress premature labour. 11. Between 2 and 10 p.m. the applicant underwent various medical examinations. The doctors found no other pathologies except that she had been having irregular contractions. 12. According to the applicant, at around 3 p.m. she was informed that her delivery was scheduled for the next day and that it would be attended by medical students. 13. At 10 p.m. the applicant was put in a drug-induced sleep. During the night her condition was monitored by doctors. 14. At 8 a.m. the next day, after the applicant had been woken up, the frequency and intensity of her contractions increased. The doctors found traces of meconium in her amniotic fluid, which indicated there was a risk that the foetus was suffering from hypoxia. The applicant was prescribed medicine to improve uteroplacental hemodynamics (blood flow to the placenta). 15. At 9 a.m. the doctors carried out a cardiotocography examination and described the state of health of both the applicant and her foetus as satisfactory. They also decided to conduct a vaginal delivery. According to the applicant, in the delivery room she objected to the presence of medical students at the birth. 16. The birth lasted from 10 to 10.35 a.m. in the presence of doctors and medical students, who had apparently received some information about her state of health and medical treatment. During the labour the doctors performed an episiotomy (incision). The child was diagnosed with light asphyxia. At 1 p.m. the child was moved to a special care baby unit and remained there until 13 May 1999, the date the applicant took her home. 17. On 10 August 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the hospital, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused as a result of the measures aimed at delaying the birth. 18. In response, the hospital administration carried out an internal inquiry. The results of were set out in a report dated 14 August 1999, which confirmed that the delivery had been conducted in line with the relevant standards, and that upon the applicant’s admission she had been notified of the possible presence of the public during her labour. The relevant part of the report read as follows: “... fourth-year medical students were present in the delivery room during [the applicant’s] labour, as [per] their timetable for 24 April 1999. This could not have had any negative impact on the outcome of the birth. Management of the delivery was performed by [the head of the Maternity Department]. On admission [the applicant] was notified of the possible presence of the public during her labour. Obstetricians did not intentionally delay the birth. The treatment was carried out in the best interests of the mother and foetus in accordance with the particular circumstances of the applicant’s delivery...” 19. On 19 August 1999 the hospital dismissed the applicant’s request, stating that there had not been any mistakes in the management of the birth. 20. On 27 July 2000 the applicant sued the hospital in the St Petersburg Vyborg District Court ("the District Court"). She sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage and a public apology for the intentional delay to her labour and the non-authorised presence of third parties during the birth. 21. On 4 September 2002 the District Court ordered an expert examination of the applicant’s case. Experts were requested to examine whether or not the applicant’s delivery had been intentionally delayed and whether or not her labour had been affected by the presence of the students. 22. In their report dated 27 September 2002 the experts concluded that: “[The hospital] provided [the applicant] with medical care without any shortcomings capable of deteriorating the health of mother or child. The medical treatment was adequate and carried out timeously. After [the applicant’s admission] she had been carefully examined by doctors, who had made the correct diagnosis and prepared an adequate plan for the birth. Owing to the prematurity of [the applicant’s] contractions and her general fatigue, the prescription of a drug-induced sleep should be considered an appropriate measure. The subsequent treatment [for] the premature contractions was necessary... Childbirth is stressful for every woman. The presence of [the hospital’s] medical students, even at the second stage of delivery, when the pregnant woman was bearing down, could not have affected management of the labour. The delivery could only have been adversely affected at the first stage. During the bearing down phase, a pregnant woman is usually focused on her physical activity. The presence of the public could not adversely affect her labour. Medical documents show that it was impossible to delay the delivery at the second stage, the stage of unintentional bearing down. The documents in the [applicant’s] case file contain no evidence to confirm that the birth was intentionally delayed with a view to arranging a study of this case by medical students.” 23. On 25 November 2003 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. Relying on the above-mentioned expert report, it held that the quality of the applicant’s treatment at the hospital had been adequate. It further noted that the domestic law, in particular, the Health Care Act, in force at the time, did not require the consent of a patient to the presence of medical students in writing. It also established the fact that the applicant had been informed of her involvement in the study process beforehand, as she had received the hospital’s booklet containing an explicit warning about the possible presence of medical students during her treatment. The District Court dismissed her argument that she had objected to the presence of the public during the birth as unsubstantiated by accepting the oral submission of her doctor that no such objection had been made. The court did not verify the doctor’s statements in this respect by questioning other witnesses and did not refer to any other evidence in connection with the issue. It concluded that the hospital doctors had acted lawfully and had not caused her any non‑pecuniary damage. 24. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows: “... The applicant lodged a claim seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage ... [She] alleged that the birth of her child had been intentionally delayed to arrange for a public procedure in the presence of medical students. [She] stated that the demonstration of her labour, which had been carried out without her consent, had caused her physical and psychological suffering and violated her rights. She stated that the defendant should pay her RUB 300,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The representatives of [the hospital] objected to the claim. They stated that the [applicant] had been aware of the study process in [the hospital] before she had been admitted there ... They further argued that [she] had received adequate and timely medical treatment ... [B.], a doctor who assisted [the applicant] during her labour stated while being questioned ... [in] court that the medical care had been provided in line with the expected standards and without delay. The applicant did not make any complaints about the quality of [her] medical care. [B.] also submitted that it was impossible to delay labour. According to her, the presence of students lasted only a few minutes. The students’ curriculum provided that they had to take part in doctors’ rounds and the medical treatment of patients... In accordance with Article 54 of the Health Care Act, students of secondary and higher medical educational institutions are allowed to assist in the administration of medical treatment in line with the requirements of their curriculum and under the supervision of medical personnel. The relevant rules are to be set forth by the Ministry of Health of Russia. Articles 32 and 33 of the Health Care Act provide that such medical interventions may not be performed without a patient’s consent, which must be confirmed in [writing]. The court finds that the mere presence of [the hospital’s] students in the delivery room cannot be construed as a medical intervention within the meaning of Articles 32 and 33 of the Health Care Act. As can be seen from the case file documents, ambulances do not usually take their patients to [hospital]. [The applicant] was taken to [the hospital] because her husband served in the [army]. According to [the applicant’s] statements, she was aware of her possible involvement in the study process (see the booklet). The case file contains no evidence which could support the allegations that she had objected to the presence of the public during the delivery. Taking into account the circumstances of this case, the court sees no grounds to find the [hospital’s] doctors guilty of inflicting any non-pecuniary damage or physical or moral suffering on the applicant. Accordingly, [the hospital] is under no obligation to pay any compensation [to her] ...” 25. On 24 May 2004 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment on appeal.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Van. 6. On 30 April 2001 the applicant went to Muş prison during visiting hours to see her brother, who was being held there in connection with a case related to the PKK, an illegal armed organisation. 7. The staff responsible for body searches found on the applicant “close to the left side of her abdomen”, a piece of paper that had been folded several times and wrapped in tape. It was an unsigned letter dated 24 April 2001, written by a member of the PKK and addressed to another member. 8. The applicant was taken into police custody on the same day and questioned in Turkish by the gendarmes the following day. During the interview she stated that she had picked up the object in question in Van at the bus stop where she was waiting for the bus to Muş. She had thought that the object might have some value and had intended to remove the wrapping once she was alone. 9. On 1 May 2001 she gave a statement to the same effect before the public prosecutor and then before the District Court. As she was illiterate, she signed the statements with her fingerprint. 10. She was remanded in custody after being examined and was released on 5 July 2001. 11. On 27 September 2001 the State Security Court of Van acquitted the applicant, considering her version of events to be credible. 12. On 17 December 2001 the applicant visited her brother again in Muş prison during a religious festival. After the visit she was taken into police custody. 13. The police report drawn up that same day stated that the staff responsible for body searches had discovered, hidden in the lining of the applicant’s dress, a sixteen-page document consisting of rolled-up onionskin paper protected by adhesive tape. According to the report, the document contained, in particular, information about the PKK’s strategy and its activities in prisons, about the conduct to be adopted vis-à-vis the prison authorities and about prison staff. 14. She was questioned in Turkish by two gendarmes on 18 December 2001. The report stated that she had been reminded of her right to the assistance of a lawyer but had waived that right. As to the facts, she had stated that she had seen a wrapped object in the prison waiting room and had picked it up out of mere curiosity, placing it in her bra. She added that, during the search, the prison officers had discovered the object and had unwrapped it. She had noticed pieces of paper covered in writing. During her visit to her brother she had told him about the incident but he had not said anything about it. The gendarmes had then arrested her as she was leaving the prison. 15. In response to a question about her personal status, she replied that she was married to G.I. on the basis of a religious marriage, not a civil one, and that they had had five children together. Her husband had another partner with whom he had had six children. 16. When asked whether she worked for the PKK, she replied in the negative. She added that, on the first occasion, she had picked up the object thinking it might contain gold and that it was with the same thought in mind that she had taken the paper in the waiting room. 17. In response to a question about ten pieces of gold discovered on her during the search, she stated that half of them belonged to her daughter and the other half were hers. 18. After she had been questioned, the public prosecutor called for her to be remanded in custody. As a result she was brought before the District Court judge. 19. Finding that she did not speak Turkish with sufficient fluency, the judge asked a member of the applicant’s family who was waiting in the corridor outside the courtroom to act as interpreter. The relative accepted. 20. The applicant stated once again that she had found the document in question in the waiting room. Immediately afterwards, she claimed that this statement, and the one previously taken by the gendarmes, concerned events that had occurred seven months earlier; that no document had been discovered on her person when she last visited the prison; that she had thought the gendarmes were questioning her about earlier events; and that, not being able to read or write, she had signed the police report with her fingerprint without knowing what it said. When she was informed of the report’s content she disputed its veracity. 21. On 18 December 2001, after the hearing, the applicant was remanded in custody and criminal proceedings were brought against her before the State Security Court of Van for membership of an illegal armed organisation and, in the alternative, for aiding and abetting such an organisation. 22. At the various hearings before that court the applicant was assisted by a lawyer and an interpreter. 23. In the course of the proceedings, the defence disputed the prison officers’ version of events. Counsel argued that no document had been found on the applicant, adding that, according to her, a document had certainly been found on a female visitor during the search carried out on entering the premises and that person had nevertheless been authorised to visit on the grounds that it was a public holiday. The prison officers had failed to arrest her when she left the prison on account of the large number of visitors that day. Having realised that the visitor in question had evaded their control, the officers had decided to arrest the applicant instead, because they knew that a similar accusation had already been made against her. In addition, the defence stated that in her statement to the gendarmes the applicant had said that the impugned object had been found in her bra, whereas the record of the incident indicated that it had been found in the lining of her dress. 24. On 12 May 2002 two female prison officers were interviewed on the basis of a warrant. The first, C.A., stated that she had personally found the impugned document in the lining of the applicant’s dress during the body search. The second, F.A., confirmed this version and stated that she had been called immediately by her colleague after the discovery. 25. Testimony was also taken from a number of defence witnesses. Two women who were visiting the prison on the day of the incident stated that they did not know if the applicant had been searched on entering the prison. Another testified that she had entered the prison at the same time as the applicant but not had seen her being searched. One of the applicant’s brothers testified that he had arrived at the prison with her but that they had become separated during the body search before coming together again to visit their brother. In their conversation with the latter, the applicant had never mentioned any incident during her body search. 26. On 29 May 2002 the applicant was given a prison sentence of three years and nine months for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation. In its reasoning, the State Security Court observed that, in the first case, the applicant had claimed to have found the impugned document at a bus stop in Van, and that, in the second, she had stated during the investigation that she had found the document in the prison waiting room. It noted that the applicant had reiterated this statement to a district judge before claiming that she had been talking about the first case and that no document had in fact been found on her during the body search of 17 December 2001. The court took the view that there were some serious inconsistencies in the applicant’s explanations. It noted that if she had really believed that the questioning by the gendarmes and the district judge concerned the events of 30 April 2001 she should logically have stated that she had found the impugned document not in the waiting room of Muş prison but in Van. It concluded that the version of events given by the applicant and the defence witnesses was not credible, and it accepted the testimony of the two prison officers, which confirmed the findings in the relevant police report. The court thus found the applicant guilty as charged. 27. On 7 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed that judgment on a procedural ground. 28. On 18 April 2003 the State Security Court convicted the applicant again and handed down the same sentence. Moreover, taking into account the time she had already served, it ordered her release. 29. That judgment was quashed on 19 January 2004 on an appeal on points of law by the applicant. The Court of Cassation took the view that the offence with which she was charged had been incomplete and had remained at the attempt stage. It dismissed the applicant’s other grounds of appeal on points of law, including the question of the absence of an interpreter in police custody. 30. On 3 May 2004 the State Security Court sentenced the applicant to one year and three months’ imprisonment for attempting to aid and abet an illegal armed organisation. It adopted the same reasoning as that of its previous judgments. 31. On 6 June 2005 the Court of Cassation referred the case back to the first-instance court stating that, in accordance with Law no. 5252, setting out the rules and procedures for the application of the new Criminal Code which had recently entered into force, the case had to be re-examined in the light of that new code to determine whether the applicant could be granted the benefit of a more lenient provision. 32. On 19 September 2005 the Van Assize Court (formerly the State Security Court) convicted the applicant once again, adopting the same reasoning as that of its previous judgments, and specifying that the provisions of the former code were more lenient. 33. The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment, submitting in particular that she had not been assisted by an interpreter while in police custody. 34. Her appeal was dismissed on 31 October 2006.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Šaľa. 6. On 31 May 1994 the applicant claimed a sum of money from a bank. 7. On 16 September 2005 the applicant lodged an application before the Court challenging the length of these proceedings. On 22 May 2007 the Court decided to strike that case (application no. 34161/05) out of its list of cases on the ground that a friendly settlement had been reached between the parties. 8. In the proceedings complained of the Supreme Court’s decision of 30 April 2007 to dismiss the applicant’s appeal, examined as an appeal on points of law, became final on 11 June 2007. 9. On 27 January 2010 the above decision was quashed by the Constitutional Court and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court for re‑examination. 10. On 23 September 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint challenging the length of the proceedings. 11. On 7 June 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment. Upon the applicant’s appeal on points of law the cassation chamber of the Supreme Court quashed that decision on 25 April 2013. 12. On 19 June 2014 the Supreme Court again dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment. The applicant indicated that he intended to lodge an appeal on points of law after the service of the Supreme Court’s decision.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a sentence in Kandıra Prison. 5. On 17 July 1996 the applicant was wounded by a gunshot in the vicinity of a jewellery shop, which had been robbed by a group of people, allegedly including him. During the incident, shots were fired and the owner of the shop was shot dead. The applicant was unconscious when admitted to the emergency department of the hospital. 6. On 18 July 1996 the gendarmerie took statements from the applicant, which he did not sign. They noted that as the applicant’s hands were wounded and bandaged, he was unable to sign them. In these statements, the applicant admitted that he had been involved in the armed robbery. He stated, inter alia, that he had had a gun in his possession, which he had used during the robbery after the shop owner had begun firing. He also stated that he had committed the offence with two other people. 7. On 22 July 1996 the officers took further statements from the applicant and the applicant’s fingerprint was added in lieu of a signature. On the same day, he was discharged from the emergency department of the hospital. According to a document drafted and signed by a doctor, the applicant had undergone a thoracotomy and laparotomy while there. 8. On 23 July 1996 the applicant was taken to the gendarmerie for questioning. According to a document drafted by three officers, the applicant’s doctors had authorised his transfer to custody. On the same day, he was asked to identify the guns allegedly used in the incident. He was also asked to identify two other people who had been arrested in connection with the same robbery. According to reports drawn up by the officers on the same day, the applicant’s condition deteriorated at around 11 p.m. and he was therefore taken back to hospital. 9. On 25 July 1996 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge. According to a document containing his statements to the judge, the applicant did not ask to be represented by a lawyer. He once again admitted that he had been involved in the armed robbery, but denied the accusation that he had killed the owner of the shop. The applicant’s fingerprint was added at the end of the statements. On the same day, the investigating judge ordered his pre-trial detention. 10. While being questioned in custody and subsequently by the public prosecutor and the judge, the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. 11. On 9 August 1996 the public prosecutor at the Bakırköy Assize Court filed an indictment against the applicant and three other people, charging them with armed robbery and murder. 12. On 21 February 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a second indictment against the applicant and eight other people, accusing them of being members of the THKP-C (Turkish People’s Liberation Party/Front) and of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force. 13. On 27 September 1996 the applicant told the Bakırköy Assize Court that he had not been involved in the armed robbery in question. He submitted that he had been in possession of a firearm as he had enemies, and had used the gun as he had heard gunshots when he was in the vicinity of the incident. He had thought that he had been attacked by his enemies, and had therefore opened fire. 14. On 13 May 1997 in his defence submissions to the Istanbul State Security Court, the applicant challenged the veracity of his statements taken between 17 and 22 July 1996 and claimed that they had been taken by the gendarmerie while he was unconscious in hospital. 15. In decisions of 23 October 1997 and 29 April 1998 respectively, the Istanbul State Security Court and the Bakırköy Assize Court decided to join the two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant with another case before the Istanbul State Security Court on the ground that there was a factual and legal link between the cases (1996/180E). 16. In a petition dated 18 June 1998 to the Istanbul State Security Court, the applicant’s representative contended that the applicant had been seriously injured on 17 July 1996, and that when his statements drafted by the security officers had been taken on 18 July 1996, he had been in such a state that he could not even sign them. The lawyer alleged that the security forces had made up a scenario implicating the applicant in the armed robbery and in terrorist-related activities. 17. On 28 June 1998 the applicant’s representative told the Istanbul State Security Court that the applicant had not known the people whose names had been mentioned in his statements and had denied their veracity, as their contents had been concocted by the security forces. 18. On 18 June 1999 Article 143 of the Constitution was amended, excluding military members from State Security Courts. As a consequence, the military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge. Following the abolition of State Security Courts by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, the case against the applicant was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. 19. On 20 March 2007 the applicant’s representative told the Assize Court that the applicant’s statements had been taken by the gendarmerie under torture. 20. On 30 May 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force and sentenced him to “aggravated” life imprisonment (without the possibility of parole). Basing its decision on ballistic, autopsy and other expert reports, statements taken from the accused, the shop owner’s cousin, who had intervened in the proceedings as a civil party, witnesses and all other evidence available in the case file, the court established that the applicant and three other people were accomplices in the armed robbery on behalf of the THKP-C and in murder. 21. On 11 March 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Leskovac. 6. On 5 September 1994 the Leskovac Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”) ordered the Leskovac branch of the “JIK” Bank (“the debtor”), a predominantly socially-owned bank, to reinstate the applicant and to pay her outstanding salary and all work-related benefits for the period following her unlawful dismissal. That judgment became final on 1 September 1995. 7. On an unspecified date, the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment. On 17 October 1995 the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution (rešenje o izvršenju). 8. On 19 December 1995 the applicant was reinstated. However, as the debtor refused to pay the outstanding judgment debt, the applicant, on an unspecified date, filed a new request for the enforcement. 9. On 18 November 1997, on the basis of a financial expert’s analysis, the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement by debtor account transfer in the total amount of 72,076.55 Yugoslav dinars (YUM) in respect of salary arrears and all work-related benefits, for the period from 1 May 1992 until 31 December 1995, together with statutory interest and YUM 550 for legal costs. 10. On 29 September 1999 the applicant requested the court to change the means of enforcement as it appeared that there were no funds in the debtor’s account. On 1 October 1999 the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement by auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable assets. 11. On 26 July 2000 the applicant obtained a pledge (zalog) over certain movable assets which were seized from the debtor (two vehicles and some technical equipment). 12. On the same day, the Belgrade Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court”) instituted liquidation proceedings against the debtor. 13. On 8 May 2001 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued in view of the pending liquidation proceedings. On 22 May 2001 the applicant reported her claims to the liquidation council (likvidaciono veće). 14. On several occasions thereafter, the applicant petitioned the court to continue with the enforcement and to schedule a public auction for the sale of the pledged assets, arguing that their value was decreasing due to the passage of time and that she had to bear the maintenance costs. On 15 January 2002 she submitted the same request to the liquidation administrator (likvidacioni upravnik). 15. The Municipal Court held two hearings concerning the applicant’s requests, on 10 December 2003 and 30 October 2005, but it would appear that no decision was issued. 16. In the meantime, on 11 March 2004 the Commercial Court appointed the Agency for Deposits as a liquidation administrator. On 7 April 2005 the Commercial Court terminated the liquidation proceedings and opened bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. 17. On 18 November 2005 the Commercial Court rejected the applicant’s claims against the debtor (paragraph 13 above) and instructed her to initiate a new set of civil proceedings. On 16 May 2007 the Belgrade High Commercial Court (“the High Commercial Court”) upheld that decision. 18. The applicant did not initiate a new set of civil proceedings as instructed. 19. It would appear that bankruptcy proceedings are still pending and that the debtor is still predominantly socially-owned.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. On 13 April 2006 the Vlasotince Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicants. The respondent, AD Retex, a privately owned company as of 2003, was ordered to: (a) reinstate them to their former jobs; (b) pay their salary arrears; (c) pay the relevant social insurance contributions due for the same period; and (d) pay the their legal costs. 7. By 11 July 2007 this judgment, as amended on appeal in respect of the legal costs, became final. 8. On 27 July 2007 the applicants filed a request for the enforcement of the said judgment. 9. On 6 August 2007 the Vlasotince Municipal Court accepted the applicants’ request and issued an enforcement order. 10. On 3 December 2007 the Leskovac District Court upheld this decision on appeal. 11. In January 2008 the Vlasotince Municipal Court carried out an assessment of the debtor’s movable assets. 12. On 21 April 2008, in response to a third party’s request, the Vlasotince Municipal Court excluded certain movable assets from the enforcement proceedings. 13. On 26 May 2008 the Vlasotince Municipal Court obtained an additional report regarding the value of the debtor’s movable assets. 14. On 22 April 2010 the Leskovac High Court ordered the re-examination of the third party’s exclusion request lodged in respect of the debtor’s assets. 15. On 21 January 2011 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings (stečajni postupak) in respect of AD Retex and on 3 June 2011 the applicants’ claims were confirmed in their entirety. The applicants themselves were classified as third-class creditors. 16. On 16 June 2011 the debtor’s assets were sold as part of the insolvency proceedings. 17. On 12 June 2013 the enforcement proceedings were stayed. 18. The insolvency proceedings before the Leskovac Commercial Court are still pending, and the applicants have yet to be paid apparently as a consequence of two related civil suits brought by other creditors. 19. On 26 April 2010 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court, maintaining that they had suffered a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and a violation of their property rights. In terms of redress, the applicants sought recognition of these violations, an order from the Constitutional Court for the expedition of the impugned enforcement proceedings, and the “removal of all adverse consequences” suffered in this connection (including through the payment of their outstanding pecuniary claims). 20. On 4 April 2012 the applicants noted the adoption of the amendments to the Constitutional Court Act, and specified their compensation claims accordingly. Specifically, on account of the pecuniary damage suffered, the applicants requested the respective amounts awarded to them by the final judgment in question, whilst as regards the non‑pecuniary damage sustained they claimed 2,200 euros each (see paragraphs 27-30 below). 21. On 27 March 2013 the Constitutional Court found, in the operative part of its ruling (u izreci), that the applicants had indeed suffered a violation of their right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as well as a violation of their property rights, but rejected the compensation claims regarding the non-pecuniary damages sought by the applicants. The Constitutional Court, lastly, ordered that the impugned enforcement proceedings be terminated in accordance with the applicable legislation (see paragraph 31 below). 22. In its reasoning the Constitutional Court established that the courts in question had not acted promptly between 27 July 2007 and 21 January 2011. Concerning the compensation issue, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicants’ pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage claims had been filed out of time. In so doing, it merely referred to Articles 36 § 1 (2) and 85 § 3 of the Constitutional Court Act, as amended in 2011, and Article 40 § 1 of the amendments themselves (see paragraphs 27-30below).

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The first and second applicants, Mr Andrzej Stankiewicz and Ms Małgorzata Solecka, were born in 1974 and 1970 respectively and live in Piaseczno-Józefosław and Kraków. The third applicant, Presspublica sp. z o. o. is a limited liability company having its registered office in Warsaw. The company is the publisher of the daily newspaper “Rzeczpospolita” where the first and second applicants worked as journalists. 6. It appears that A.F., the chief executive of the Polish branch of M.S.D. Inc. (“M.S.D.”), a large pharmaceutical company, approached journalists of the daily newspaper “Rzeczpospolita”. He informed them on condition of anonymity that the company had received a proposal to “arrange” the placement of its drug on the list of refunded drugs in exchange for a bribe. 7. On 12 May 2003 “Rzeczpospolita” published on the front and fourth pages an article entitled “Drugs for millions of dollars” (“Leki za miliony dolarów”), written by the first and second applicants. The subtitle read: “A pharmaceutical company asserts that the Head of the Private Office of the Minister of Health demanded a large bribe” (“koncern farmaceutyczny twierdzi, że szef gabinetu politycznego ministra zdrowia żądał dużej łapówki”). 8. The journalists alleged that in the summer of 2002 W.D., the Head of the Private Office of the Minister of Health (Szef Gabinetu Politycznego Ministra Zdrowia) had demanded a bribe from representatives of a pharmaceutical company, offering in return his assistance in having a drug manufactured by the company placed on the list of drugs refunded within the framework of the national health care scheme. 9. In the article, the applicants recounted the circumstances of two meetings which had taken place in Warsaw restaurants. They were attended by W.D., B.O. – director of a private osteoporosis clinic and W.D.’s friend, as well as two representatives of the pharmaceutical company – Ł.Z. and H.M.N. The meetings had been devoted to the plan to set up jointly, by the two companies, a network of osteoporosis clinics in Poland. 10. The relevant parts of the article read: “W.D., the Head of the Private Office of M.Ł. [Minister of Health], demanded a multi-million dollar bribe, offering his assistance in placing drugs on the list of refunded drugs – asserts foreign pharmaceutical company. W.D. rejects these allegations, and M.Ł. [the Minister] does not believe the version of events presented by the company. ... “It is the first such obvious case of a corruption proposal which has happened to me” – asserts the representative of the company. W.D. admits that he twice met the representatives of the company, but denies that he demanded money from them. ... Companies are keen to have their drugs placed on the list [of refunded drugs]. Why? Because the State pays part of their price so they are cheaper and more accessible to patients. It has been known for years that decisions concerning registration and placement of drugs on the list of refunded drugs were accompanied by “informal payments”. However, up to now the representatives of the pharmaceutical companies have never directly admitted that they were asked for a bribe. ... According to the director of the pharmaceutical company, W.D. was trying to convince [them] that the osteoporosis clinic [of B.O.] was a serious project. ... “He [W.D.] offered us cooperation and demanded a one-off rapid payment of 1.5 million dollars and then annual payments of 1-1.5 million. Money was to be spent on “infrastructure””. 11. The journalists sought comments from W.D. before the publication of the article. They put to him questions about his presence as a high-ranking State official at a business meeting between two companies. W.D. initially denied that he had participated in it. However, two days later he recalled that he had in fact participated in the second meeting. Contrary to his earlier assertions, he also stated that the issue of the list of refunded drugs had been discussed at the meeting but at the initiative of the pharmaceutical company. Eventually, W.D. admitted that his participation at the meetings had been inappropriate and stated that he had felt uncomfortable in his role of an official. 12. The Minister M.Ł. refused to speak to the journalists. In his written statement he asserted that W.D.’s participation at the meetings had not been inappropriate and that he did not believe the version of events as presented by the pharmaceutical company. 13. The journalists included in the article critical comments made by A.N., the Deputy Minister of Health responsible for drugs policy at the relevant time. A.N. stated that “W.D. was not authorised to participate at such meetings. It is not the role of the Head of the Private Office.” He also stated that “The Head of the Private Office should not be dealing with his business future in the course of carrying out his official duties”. 14. The article also included a report on the career of W.D. entitled “Doctor, businessman, official”. It described, inter alia, his activities in the Mazowiecki branch of the Alliance of the Democratic Left (Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej) and his association with M.Ł., the future Minister of Health. On the recommendation of his party W.D. was appointed a member of the Board of the Mazowiecki Health Insurance Fund (Mazowiecka Kasa Chorych). After the parliamentary elections in the autumn 2001, won by the Alliance of the Democratic Left, W.D. together with the Minister of Health M.Ł. and the Deputy Minister A.N. became one of the most influential figures in the health ministry to the exclusion of three other deputy ministers. In September 2002 W.D. suddenly resigned from his position as the Head of the Private Office of the Minister. 15. On 22 May 2003 W.D. lodged a civil action with the Warsaw Regional Court against the applicants for infringement of his personal rights. He demanded that the defendants publish an apology and further sought 500,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Subsequently, he modified the latter claim and sought instead 50,000 PLN to be paid to a charity. W.D. submitted that the information about the alleged request for a bribe in exchange for the placement of a drug on the list of refunded drugs had been misleading and untrue. The newspaper’s allegations against W.D. had been based on unverified information originating from the representatives of the pharmaceutical company. 16. The applicants argued that the version of events presented in the article was credible and that they had observed due diligence in gathering information for their article. They further argued that the disclosure of the facts presented in the article had been justified in the public interest. 17. During the proceedings, the Warsaw Regional Court heard several witnesses, including the participants at the business meetings, i.e. B.O., H.M.N., Ł.Z., the claimant W.D. as well as A.F. and the journalists. 18. Ł.Z., an employee of the pharmaceutical company, testified that the meetings had been devoted to M.S.D. Inc.’s possible involvement in the project of setting up a network of osteoporosis clinics in Poland. This involvement, according to the expectations of B.O.’s company, was to be limited to making a payment of approximately PLN 400,000, i.e. approximately between USD 100,000 and USD 150,000, to a given bank account. According to Ł.Z.’s testimony, this proposal was not accepted by M.S.D. Inc., whose participation in the project was thereby terminated. Ł.Z. further testified that while indeed the participants had also talked about the possibility of placing a certain drug on the list of refunded drugs, there had been in fact no causal link between the two matters. 19. H.M.N., the finance director of the pharmaceutical company, testified that he had met W.D. and B.O. to discuss the same project. W.D. had introduced himself as a person representing a group which had been interested in the project. According to H.M.N., he expressed his surprise that the representative of the Government would be interested in the project involving a drug which had not been placed on the list of refunded drugs. At that point W.D. had stated that he would look into this issue. H.M.N. further stated that from the company point of view “there had been no connection between the project and the placement of the drug on the list”. The pharmaceutical company refused to participate financially in the project on the terms proposed by W.D. and B.O. 20. A.F., the chief executive of the company, testified that the participants at the meetings had discussed the project of setting up a network of clinics treating osteoporosis. He was informed by two of his employees present at the meeting that W.D. had proposed to the company to invest a certain amount in that project. According to A.F., W.D. had also discussed the issue of placement of the company’s drug used for treating osteoporosis on the list of refunded drugs. He considered that the two issues, namely the financial investment in the project and the placement of the company’s drug on the list were interconnected. He understood, basing himself on the information from his employees, that if the company had decided to invest in the project then the placement of its drug on the list of refunded drugs would have been possible. 21. B.O., director of a private osteoporosis clinic and friend of W.D., stated that the participants had discussed osteoporosis and the setting up of a network of clinics treating that illness. According to B.O., Ł.Z. had requested a meeting with W.D. and he had arranged it accordingly. B.O. denied that the participants at the meeting had discussed the issue of the placement of the company drug on the list of refunded drugs or that W.D. had demanded a bribe. 22. By a judgment of 17 June 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed W.D.’s claim. 23. The court established that in their article the applicants, besides their critical assessment of the Ministry of Health’s decision-making process concerning the registration and placement of drugs on the list of refunded drugs, described the events related by the anonymous representatives of the Polish branch of one of the large pharmaceutical companies. Their article was also based on the information received from A.N. (the Deputy Minister of Health), B.O., W.D. and the statement received from the Minister of Health. The assertions of the representatives of the pharmaceutical company were confronted with the statements of W.D. The journalists further presented W.D.’s professional and political career. In the article they pointed to specific contradictions and ambiguities in W.D.’s account of his meetings with the representatives of the pharmaceutical company. The article presented the claimant who was a high-ranking official in a negative light, but the readers were offered two versions of the relevant events and could make their own assessment of it. It was undisputed that W.D. had met twice in restaurants with H.M.N. and Ł.Z., the representatives of the American pharmaceutical company M.S.D. Inc. and introduced himself as the Head of the Private Office of the Minister of Health. 24. The Regional Court further established that W.D. assisted at the meetings with B.O., his friend and the owner of the Mokotów Osteoporosis Centre. The participants discussed the possibility of a joint undertaking of the two companies in developing a network of osteoporosis clinics in Poland. The pharmaceutical company was interested in the placement of its drug for the treatment of osteoporosis on the Ministry’s list of refunded drugs. The parties discussed the organisational and financial details of the joint project as well as the issue of the pharmaceutical company’s difficulties in securing the placement of its drug on the list. Eventually, the joint project failed because the pharmaceutical company had not accepted the financial terms of the Polish company. A.F. and H.M.N., respectively the chief executive and finance director of the Polish branch of M.S.D. Inc. approached the press and informed the journalists that W.D. had demanded from their company a bribe in exchange for the placement of the company’s drug on the list. 25. Two journalists, M. Solecka, who specialised in the public health issues, together with A. Stankiewicz became interested in the story. Before publishing the article, the journalists had spoken to A.F., H.M.N., B.O. and W.D. as well as high-ranking officials in the Ministry of Health in order to verify their information. A.F., the chief executive of the pharmaceutical company was considered by the journalists as a reliable source, especially as he had undertaken to confirm his story before the court if necessary. The court further noted that the version of events presented to the applicants by A.F. and H.M.N. had been consistent, while the version presented by W.D. had been varying and proved inaccurate upon verification. Faced with divergent accounts, the journalists decided to present two versions of the meetings between the parties. M. Solecka had observed for years irregularities in the process of placement of drugs on the list of refunded drugs and received anonymous information about them. 26. The Regional Court considered that the testimonies of A.F., H.M.N. and Ł.Z. in respect of the course of the meetings were in principle similar. Witness Ł.Z. stated that the claimant (W.D.) had undertaken to check the list of refunded drugs and the chances of placing on it the drug manufactured by M.S.D. The parties had also discussed the need for the pharmaceutical company to make a quick decision about the transfer of money to an indicated bank account to which the finance director had firmly objected and thus M.S.D. pulled out of the joint project. 27. The Regional Court found that part of the article contested by W.D. had corresponded to the version of events presented to the journalists by the directors of M.S.D. In view of the consistency of the directors’ account and the lack of coherent explanation as to the course of the meetings by W.D. and B.O. the journalists could consider the former as a reliable source. Moreover, the court expressed a view that the mere fact of W.D.’s participation in the business meeting between two companies, during which he had introduced himself as a Ministry official, had placed him in an ambiguous and awkward situation and lent credibility to the account of the directors of M.S.D. In these circumstances the Regional Court held that the impugned article had been based on reliable and verified information. The accounts of the representatives of the M.S.D. and of W.D. had been accurately reported. It was further no doubt that the article had dealt with issues of public interest, namely corruption. 28. The court held that the article had infringed the personal rights of W.D. However, it found that the applicants’ conduct had not been unlawful within the meaning of Article 24 of the Civil Code read in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the 1984 Press Act because the journalists had shown sufficient diligence in gathering and publishing the information and acted in accordance with the professional ethics. It noted that the information that the applicants had had at their disposal before the publication of the article had been sufficiently reliable to justify the allegation made in the article. Lastly, the court noted that the journalist had not been required to prove the truthfulness of their allegations in order to demonstrate the lack of unlawfulness in their actions. 29. W.D. appealed against the judgment and dropped his pecuniary claims. He argued that the journalists had largely based their conclusions on the version of events presented to them by A.F., and that the latter had deliberately sought to disparage him with a view to having the drug manufactured by M.S.D. Inc. placed on the list of refunded drugs. He further argued that A.F. had not in fact participated in the meeting at which the alleged offer of a bribe had been made, and thus his version of events could not be regarded as reliable. He further contended that while preparing the article the journalists had failed to question Ł.Z., who had served during the meeting as an interpreter of his conversations with H.M.N. He stressed that he spoke no English and H.M.N. did not speak or understand Polish, making any direct conversation between them impossible. 30. By a judgment of 11 October 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. 31. The Court of Appeal concurred with the lower court that W.D.’s personal rights had been infringed. It noted that the allegation levelled against the claimant that a high-ranking public official had demanded a bribe for securing a placement of the drug on the list of refunded drugs amounted to a criminal offence. The allegation that a person had committed or attempted to commit an offence amounted to a flagrant violation of one’s reputation. 32. The Court of Appeal, leaving aside the question of the truthfulness of the allegation raised, concentrated its analysis on whether the journalists had respected the special diligence required of them under the Press Act in order to rebut the presumption of unlawfulness of the infringement of W.D.’s personal rights. It referred to the case-law of the Supreme Court (the Supreme Court’s judgments of 14 May 2003, case no. I CKN 463/01, and of 18 February 2005, case no. I CKN 463/01) which held that in order to rebut the said presumption of unlawfulness it was sufficient to establish that a journalist had acted with requisite diligence, and that it was not necessary to prove the truthfulness of the allegations raised. Contrary to the lower court, the Court of Appeal found that the journalists had failed to observe special diligence in the preparation of their article. 33. It noted, first and foremost, that while preparing their article the applicants had failed to question Ł.Z., while the latter’s version of events had been crucial, given that W.D. and H.M.N. had relied on his interpretation to understand each other. The Court held that the journalists’ failure to acquaint themselves with Ł.Z.’s version of events – given that there had been only four participants at the meeting – amounted to a cardinal error and clearly demonstrated that they had failed to observe due diligence. The court further noted that the version of events presented by A.F., the company’s chief executive, to the journalists had been essentially based on summary information concerning the meetings, given to him by H.M.N. and Ł.Z., and thus might have been inaccurate due to possible translation mistakes. The journalists had not attempted to confirm whether the latter’s version of events had corresponded to the version of Ł.Z., but on the other hand they had spoken to persons (certain members of parliament) who had not had much in common with the issues raised in the article. 34. The Court of Appeal observed that the reliability of A.F. was open to doubt. In this regard, it noted that the chief executive had clearly not wished that the journalists speak to Ł.Z. and that he had contacted the press only a few months after the impugned events had occurred. Furthermore, the list of refunded drugs for 2003 was only published in January of that year, while Ł.Z. had met the claimant in December 2002, on the instructions of A.F., to discuss the placement of the company’s drug on the list. The court noted that it could be concluded from that that if the company’s drug had been included on the Ministry’s list, then A.F. would not have disseminated the information which was the subject of the article. 35. The Court of Appeal also held that the first-instance court had erroneously assessed the testimonies of certain witnesses and concluded that the information that the applicants had had at their disposal before publication was insufficient for making the allegations of corruption against W.D. It was confirmed that B.O. had met with the representatives of M.S.D. to discuss the project of the network of osteoporosis clinics. This project was at the early stage but it was agreed that the financial contribution of M.S.D. would be in the region of 1-1.5 million USD. The parties did not agree on the form of this contribution. M.S.D. envisaged it in the form of supplying equipment and premises but did not accept the proposal of the Polish company to make a transfer of the above amount to an account of some unspecified company. According to the Court of Appeal it was only A.F. who had linked the demand to make the above payment with the issue of the list of refunded drugs. Witness H.M.N. stated that “there had been no connection between the project concerning osteoporosis clinics and the placement of the drug on the list”, while Ł.Z. denied that there had been any correlation between the two issues. Ł.Z. asserted that neither the claimant nor anyone else had proposed to have the drug placed on the list in exchange for a bribe. Accordingly, the court found that the witnesses’ testimonies did not confirm the truthfulness of the allegations made by the journalists. 36. In conclusion, the Court of Appeal held that the applicants’ conduct had been unlawful within the meaning of Article 24 of the Civil Code read in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the 1984 Press Act and infringed the claimant’s reputation and trust that was necessary in the exercise of his public duties. 37. The applicants were ordered to publish an apology in their newspaper, which the Court of Appeal worded as follows: “M.S. and A.S. [the first and second applicants], the authors of the article “Drugs for millions of dollars”, published in the newspaper “Rzeczpospolita” of 12 May 2003, as well as the publisher of this newspaper, Presspublica sp. z o.o., hereby declare that by including in the article the statement to the effect that W.D. had offered to place a drug on the Minister of Health’s list of refunded drugs in return for a multi-million bribe, they infringed W.D.’s personal rights by exposing him to a loss of good reputation and trust necessary to pursue his public and professional activity and for that they present their apology.” 38. The applicants were also ordered to pay PLN 4,400 (1,100 euros (EUR)) in court fees and to reimburse the costs of PLN 6,230 (EUR 1,550) to W.D. 39. The applicants lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment. They argued, inter alia, that their conduct had not been unlawful, as they had observed due diligence in gathering the material for their article and the information obtained from the persons that they had questioned before publication had been sufficiently reliable. Further, they submitted that it was their right and duty as journalists to publish an article about the issue of corruption and that they had acted in the public interest. 40. By a judgment of 13 April 2007, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, holding that the applicants’ conduct had in fact been unlawful. In doing so, the Supreme Court based its findings largely on the conclusions reached by the Warsaw Court of Appeal. It concurred with that court that the evidence in the case, in particular the testimonies of the witnesses, had not made it possible to establish that in the course of the negotiations concerning investment in osteoporosis clinics the claimant or anyone else had demanded a bribe with a view to securing the placement of the drug manufactured by the company on the list of refunded drugs. The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicants on 20 June 2007. 41. Following the publication of the article, on 22 May 2003 the Warsaw Appellate Prosecutor Office (Department for the Organised Crime) opened an investigation in the case concerning a bribe-taking by a government official. 42. On 17 March 2004 the Warsaw Appellate Prosecutor charged W.D. with bribery in that W.D., as a public official, had demanded not less than 1.200.000 PLN from the pharmaceutical company in order to finance a network of osteoporosis clinics. The prosecutor alleged that W.D. jointly with the representative of the Mokotów Osteoporosis Centre had negotiated the project with the M.S.D. He had also participated in the registration in July 2002 of the limited liability company “Woman +50” which was subsequently intended to manage the network of clinics. Secondly, W.D. was charged with procurement fraud. The prosecutor alleged that W.D., as a deputy Chairman of the Board of the Mazowiecki Health Insurance Fund and the chief executive of the company “Woman +50”, had submitted false documents to the Mazowiecki Health Insurance Fund in order to secure contracts for the company. The prosecutor imposed preventive measures on W.D., namely a ban on leaving the country and ordered him to put up bail of PLN 200,000. 43. On 17 January 2007 the Warsaw Appellate Prosecutor discontinued the proceedings against W.D. in respect of the charge of bribery for lack of sufficient evidence that he had committed the impugned offence.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Vilnius. 6. By a decision of 18 June 2002 the Vilnius Region Administration restored the applicant’s property rights to 0.23 hectares of land in the context of restitution of property rights which had been violated by the unlawful nationalisation during the Soviet regime. Subsequently, the plot of land was registered in the land registry in her name. 7. On 15 July 2002 the applicant sold the plot of land for 76,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 22,000 euros (EUR)) to two private buyers, E.T. and D.Z., who became the owners of the plot. 8. In August 2003 the Vilnius Region Administration found that a mistake had been made in granting the plot of land to the applicant and notified her and, later, the public prosecutor. 9. In June 2004 the public prosecutor initiated civil proceedings to have the decision of 18 June 2002 and sale contract annulled on the ground that in 1993 part of the same plot of land had already been sold by the State to a private buyer, R.G. Moreover, the plot was situated in a community garden (sodininkų bendrija) and therefore the former owner’s rights to it could not be restored under the Law on the Restoration of Citizens’ Rights of Ownership to Existing Real Property (Piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymas – hereinafter “Law on Restitution”). 10. At the same time criminal proceedings had been instituted into possible forgery of the documents. However, suspicions with regard to the applicant were not confirmed, and the proceedings were discontinued in July 2006. 11. The Vilnius Region Administration acknowledged that the plot of land had been assigned to the applicant unlawfully. 12. On 20 August 2004 assets belonging to the applicant amounting in value to LTL 76,000, including bank deposits and her pension, were seized to ensure satisfaction of the prosecutor’s civil claim. 13. On 5 May 2005 the Vilnius 1st City District Court granted the prosecutor’s claim. The transfer of title involving the plot of land was annulled. Ownership was awarded to R.G. and the applicant was ordered to pay LTL 76,000 to E.T. and D.Z. The applicant did, however, reserve the right to have her ownership rights to a plot of land restored. 14. On 15 September 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant. 15. By a final decision of 22 March 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts. 16. On 30 May 2006 the order requiring the applicant to pay LTL 76,000 was enforced by a bailiff. 17. According to information submitted by the applicant, she had to borrow money to comply with the order to pay LTL 76,000 and to cover other legal expenses. She also alleged that the unlawful actions of the authorities and the related court proceedings had caused her health to deteriorate significantly, as she had suffered stress and later become disabled. 18. In November 2005, after receiving a refusal from the Vilnius Region Administration to compensate her for her loss, the applicant brought a claim against the State before the administrative courts for LTL 90,479 (about EUR 26,200) in pecuniary damage and LTL 300,000 (about EUR 87,000) in non-pecuniary damage. 19. By a final decision of 15 November 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the first instance court and granted the applicant’s claim in part awarding her LTL 838 (approximately EUR 240) for pecuniary (part of her legal costs and expenses) and LTL 2,000 (approximately EUR 580) for non-pecuniary damage. The court also concluded that the unlawful actions of the national authorities had violated the applicant’s legitimate expectations and had had an impact on her health, given her old age. However, the court dismissed most of the applicant’s claims to have reimbursed the pecuniary loss she had allegedly sustained as a result of the annulment of the transfer of title to the plot and the court proceedings she had had to undergo. In that connection, the courts noted that the applicant had no legal grounds to claim compensation for pecuniary damage, given that she had unlawfully had her ownership rights to the disputed plot restored. 20. Later, by a decision of 9 April 2009 the Vilnius Region Administration restored the applicant’s property rights by granting her a new plot of land of 0.23 hectare.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicants are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972, 1965 and 1961 respectively. Mr Yılmaz Yıldız lives in Niğde and the others live in Mardin. 6. The first applicant, Yılmaz Yıldız, is a health officer and the branch chairman of the Health and Social Services Workers’ Union (Sağlık ve Sosyal Hizmet Emekçileri Sendikası – “the SES”) in Niğde. The second applicant, Kamiran Yıldırım, is a doctor and the branch chairman of the SES in Mardin. The third applicant, Mehmet Metin Çılgın, is a doctor and also a member of the SES in Mardin. 7. On 4 February 2005 several members of the union gathered in front of the Niğde Social Security Institution (Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu – “the SSK”) Hospital. Subsequently the first applicant read out the SES’s press statement drawing attention to the problems that could arise as a consequence of the transfer of hospitals incorporated in the SSK to the Ministry of Health. 8. The statement read as follows: “For the attention of the press and the public: Hospitals incorporated in the SSK have been transferred to the Ministry of Health pursuant to Law no. 5283. Following that structural change patients were unable to take their medication for a long time and hospital staff have been working in a tense atmosphere. Before the structural changes our union warned the Government and the public. The probable administrative and bureaucratic problems were pointed out: SSK was going to be under a huge economic burden, people would have to pay for health care services and an additional tax was going to be imposed on workers. Our union maintains that the Government should allocate more funds from the budget to the health care services to redress the structural problems. Our union states that all citizens should be provided with equal, accessible, sufficient and free health care services.” 9. On 25 February 2005 the second and third applicants together with another thirty persons gathered in the Mardin Yenişehir SSK Hospital yard. Subsequently, the second applicant read out the press statement in his capacity as chairman of the Mardin branch of the union. 10. The police did not prevent anyone from entering the yard during either gathering. Nor did they interfere with the demonstrations or the reading out of the press statements. 11. According to the police reports of 4 February 2005 in Niğde and 25 February 2005 in Mardin, the two groups of demonstrators had been warned verbally that their gatherings were illegal and ordered to disband for the protection of public order and safety. 12. The Niğde and Mardin public prosecutors filed indictments charging the applicants with intentionally disobeying orders issued by the authorities aimed at protecting public order and safety, pursuant to section 32 of the Misdemeanours Act, Law No. 5326 (see paragraph 17 below). 13. On 8 June and 14 July 2005 the Mardin Magistrates’ Court and the Niğde Magistrates’ Court, respectively, convicted the applicants as charged and imposed on them administrative fines of 100 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 62 euros (EUR)). 14. The applicants appealed against the courts’ decisions. 15. On 20 June 2005 and 26 July 2005 the Mardin Assize Court and the Niğde Assize Court, respectively, dismissed the applicants’ appeals. These decisions were notified to the applicants respectively on 15 July 2005 and 3 August 2005. 16. On 23 August 2005 and 11 October 2005 the applicants paid the fines to the relevant tax departments.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1961. He is currently serving his prison sentence in Pechora prison (Komi Republic). 6. On 20 December 2001 a judge at the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan (Верховный суд Републики Башкорстан) ordered the interception of the applicant’s telephone calls. 7. On 19 January 2002 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of several counts of theft and aggravated murder. The prosecution’s case was that the applicant, the chief security officer of the joint stock company “Bashneft” (АНК «Башнефть»), together with other security officers, had repeatedly stolen petroleum products from Tuymazy gas-processing plant (Туймазинский газоперерабатывающий завод) belonging to ”Bashneft”. The applicant was also accused of having killed O., a presumed accomplice, in order to cover up the criminal activity. 8. On 23 November 2002 a senior investigator of the Bashkortostan Prosecution Office (Прокуратура Републики Башкорстан) dismissed the applicant’s complaints concerning different investigation steps. The applicant argued, inter alia, that: “As it appears from a comparison of the audio records with the printed records of telephone conversations, the records concerning the telephone conversations of [the applicant] show traces of forgery, the audio cassettes contain much less conversations than the printed records. Consequently, it is impossible to establish the time of each conversation. The annotation of the conversations shows that they were forged. ... One of the groups which was looking for [O.] ... on 14 January 2002, was headed by ... the brother of co-defendant [Nu.]. It follows that there are reasonable doubts as to the truthfulness of the testimony given by this witness.” 9. The prosecutor stated in his decision in particular that: “There is no need to examine the audio records on the audio cassettes Nos. 613, 933 and 137, as there are no reasons to consider that the said audio records are forged or that any other modifications were made. Apart from this, many of the audio records ... do not concern the subject of the investigation .... The most important audio records were submitted to [forensic experts] who confirmed that the records did not show any signs of forgery or any other modifications made in the course of the recording or afterwards.” 10. In the proceedings, the applicant and certain co-defendants pleaded not guilty. The remaining co-defendants pleaded guilty in part. Some of them, including co-defendant Nu. in respect of the theft on the night of 6 December 2001, also confessed to having falsely accused the applicant during the pre-trial investigation under pressure from the police officers. The records of telephone conversations between persons involved in the petroleum thefts were also admitted in evidence. In this respect, the applicant submitted at trial that the audio cassettes with the records of these conversations showed traces of forgery and that the evidence of the forensic expert had been carried out contrary to the law. He stated that he had never had any conversation with anybody in respect of the stealing of petroleum products from Tuymazy gas-processing plant. 11. On 16 June 2003 a judge at the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. 12. With respect to the theft of petroleum products on the night of 6 December 2001, the court heard O.’s mother and V. with whom O. lived in partnership. It also relied on statements by witness N. given during the pre-trial investigation, in which he confirmed that a man named Vladimir (the applicant’s first name) had approached him offering to find buyers for petroleum products and that they had made a deal on 5 and 6 December 2001. He also stated that on 6 December 2001 at about 4 or 5 a.m., he had given RUB 50,000 to Vladimir. According to him, he did not know that Vladimir had been selling the petroleum products illegally. These facts were corroborated by corresponding telephone records between N. and the subscriber of a mobile phone which was used by the applicant. In this respect, the court noted: “According to the records of the telephone conversations between [N.] on mobile phone ‘8-901-475-5808’ and the subscriber of mobile phone number’“8-293-38-266’ (this telephone was used by [the applicant]) [N.] began talking with the subscriber on 19 November 2001, talked with the same subscriber a few times on 4 December 2001, and from 3.45 pm on 5 December 2001 until 5.10 am on 6 December 2001 talked with him on 24 occasions.” 13. The court further took into account the pre-trial submissions of witnesses S., Kha., Na. and G., none of whom appeared at the trial. The witnesses described, inter alia, the events of 5 and 6 December 2001 but did not say anything about the applicant’s direct participation in the theft. The court decided to read out their statements, on the grounds that it had been impossible to ensure their attendance. It appears from the documents in the case file that witnesses Kha. and Na. did not attend the trial since they had been on mission, and that witness Si. (see paragraph 20 below) and G. had apologised for not attending due to family reasons. 14. The court further referred to material from the investigation in which witness Na. had shown the places where the cisterns had entered the premises of the petroleum company. 15. The judgment also referred to the pre-trial statements of co-defendants Mi., Mu. and Gu., which were inconsistent with their evidence at trial, one of them indicating the applicant as a person who had been on the premises of the petroleum company on the relevant night. The court finally relied on certain material evidence relating to the time in question. 16. As regards the theft of petroleum products on the nights from 29 to 30 December 2001 and from 11 to 12 January 2002, the applicant, together with certain co-defendants, pleaded not guilty at trial. Due to the inconsistencies between the co-defendants’ pleadings at trial and their pre-trial statements, the court relied on their original declarations from which it appeared that the applicant had assured the free passage of fuel trucks onto the premises of the territory of the petroleum company. The court stated in this respect that their original statements were consistent with other evidence contained in the case file and given at trial. 17. In respect of both thefts, the court further relied on the pre-trial submissions of witnesses Si., Gi., A., T. and Sh., who had failed to appear at the trial. They did not mention that the applicant had been involved in the theft, merely describing the events of that night. The applicant allegedly objected to the reading out of the statements which they had made at the pre-trial stage, on the grounds that he wished to examine these witnesses in person. According to him, his objections were rejected. Moreover, the court heard witness Khu. whose pre-trial testimony had also been read out because of certain contradictions with his statement at trial. According to the court, his pre-trial statements were consistent with the pre-trial statements of witnesses Si., Gi., A. and T. 18. In respect of the theft on the night from 11 to 12 January 2002, the applicant and three co-detainees pleaded not guilty and three co-defendants pleaded partly guilty. It appears from the judgment that at trial co-defendant Nu. stated that he had been forced to incriminate the applicant and co-defendants B. and Sh., having been put under pressure by the police officers at the pre-trial stage. 19. The court further relied on the recorded telephone conversations stating, in particular, that: “... the guilt of the defendants in respect of the theft of petroleum products on the nights from 29 to 30 December 2001 and from 11 to 12 January 2002 is confirmed by the records of the inspection on the site and the examination of the audio cassettes containing the telephone conversations from the mobile number used by [the applicant]. For example, on the nights of 29 December 2001, 30 December 2001, 11 and 12 January 2002 at night there were phone calls from the number used by [the applicant] to the mobile phones of [O.], [co-defendant Sh.]; [the audio cassettes also contained] the phone calls to the work phone of [co-defendants Nu.]. The conversations concerned the journey of petrol tankers which arrived in order to collect petroleum products, the fact that the petroleum tanker had been detained on 12 January 2002 ... At trial these audio cassettes ... were examined and ... [O.’s mother] and [co-defendant Nu.] recognised the voices of [O.], [of the applicant and defendants Sh. and his own voice].” The court also heard three employees of the petroleum company who described the relevant circumstances of the theft in question. 20. According to the Government, the statements of absent witnesses S., Na., G., Si., Gi., A. and T. and Sh. did not incriminate the applicant, as they only described the circumstances of the theft and did not provide any information suggesting that the applicant had participated in the offence. The Government also state that the Russian authorities took all possible measures to ensure the witnesses’ attendance. They note that by a court order of 24 January 2003, the absent witnesses were summoned to appear at trial. That order was to be enforced by the Bashkortostan and Tatarstan authorities respectively, neither of which succeeded in bringing the witnesses before the court. The case file includes telegrams and official reports containing information as to why witnesses G., Si., Na. and Kha. were absent (see also paragraph 13 above). 21. With respect to the murder of O., the court relied on statements of the victim’s parents and partner during the trial, recordings of his telephone conversations with the applicant, and the results of several expert examinations. The court noted, inter alia, that: “In accordance with the records of the telephone conversations of [O.], he regularly contacted [the applicant] who used the mobile phone number ‘8-902-38-266’, registered in the name of his wife ... ... [O.] made the last call from his mobile phone to the home number of his mother (6-21-63) on 14 January 2002 at 6.48.52 pm., which is consistent with the testimony of [his mother] given at trial in which she stated that this was precisely the time at which her son had called home and said that [the applicant] was killing him ...” The court examined the reasons submitted by [the applicant] and his representatives for claiming that the surveillance of the telephone conversations had been carried out contrary to the criminal procedure laws and the Constitution ... on the grounds that the permission for the surveillance granted by the Supreme Court had been given in respect of the mobile phone of [the applicant], while the police officers had in fact carried out surveillance of the mobile phone of his wife ... ... As it appears from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan of 20 December 2001 ... the permission related to the surveillance of the telephone conversations at the applicant’s home and ... place of work, as well as the surveillance of the mobile phone of [the applicant]. The court clearly established that [the applicant] had used the mobile phone “8-293 (or 902)-38-266” which was registered in the name of his wife ...” 22. In his grounds of appeal the applicant complained, inter alia, that the trial court had not secured the attendance of the key witnesses N. and other witnesses. He also stated that the records of the telephone conversations were not officially certified and, therefore, could be forged. 23. On 24 September 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment finding that the court of first instance had correctly assessed the facts established during the court proceedings and had reached the right legal conclusions. It stated, inter alia, that the fact that on the night to 12 January 2002 an organised group involving the employees of the plant and paramilitary protection unit, together with a member of the road police (State Inspectorate for Road Safety - государственная инспекция по безопасности дорожного движения (ГИБДД)) committed the theft of the petroleum products to the value of RUB 34,483.56 was established on the basis of the statements of three co-defendants given at the trial. 24. It further stated that the applicant’s guilt in this case, as well as his guilt of the thefts on the nights to 6 and 30 December 2001 respectively, was confirmed by the testimony of four co-defendants, by the statement of witness N. as to the handover of RUB 50,000 to the applicant, by the content of the transcription of the applicant’s telephone conversations with the above co-defendants according to which the applicant had several times spoken about the different matters relating to the theft, by the record of the inspection of the scene and of cistern KAMAZ and its trailer, by the investigation experiments and by other evidence which had been described in detail in the first instance judgment. 25. The Supreme Court added that, according to the records of the confrontations between the applicant and other persons, including two of co-defendants M. and Nu., who had denounced his involvement in the thefts, the applicant had not denied their assertions but had left them “without comments”. 26. In respect of the applicant’s allegation that the audio records were forged, the court noted that the expert forensic report showed no traces of forgery or any other modifications. 27. The applicant was held in Ufa IZ-3/1 pre-trial detention facility (ФБУ ИЗ-1/3 ГУФСИН г. Уфы) from 10 May to 20 December 2002 and from 7 February to 21 December 2003. According to the Government, on 21 December 2003 the applicant was transported to Mikunsky ULIU prison in the Komi Republic (Микуньское УЛИУ ГРОВД Республики Коми) to serve the rest of his sentence. Moreover, from 20 December 2002 to 7 February 2003 he was detained in the temporary detention unit at Tuymazinsky police station (ИВС ГРОВД гор. Туймазы) to be at the disposal of the Tuymazinsky City Court (Туймазинский городской суд). 28. In his letter of 22 December 2005, the applicant stated that in Ufa IZ-3/1 pre-trial detention facility, he had mostly been detained, together with three other co-detainees, in buildings nos. 2 and 3 in cells measuring 3x4 metres equipped with two bunk beds. In his cell in building no. 2, there was a pan for use as a lavatory and a washstand just above it, the toilet was not separated from the living area, and the stench from it was unbearable. The inmates had to use a sheet as a partition to afford themselves a small degree of privacy, but even that was later forbidden by the prison authorities. There was no table in the cell. Daily walks lasted generally 30 minutes and exceptionally one hour.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in the town of Beloozerskiy (Moscow Region). 6. According to the Government, in the morning of 20 March 2002 the applicant, who was armed with a handgun, along with two other persons robbed a shop in Moscow. After the robbery the applicant left the shop with bags containing the stolen items – mobile phones. The two victims of the robbery (Mr G., the owner of the shop, and Mr P., a shop assistant) ran after the applicant. They managed to catch up with him and knocked him to the ground. Mr P. and Mr G. then disarmed the applicant and tied his hands with a belt. The applicant offered resistance. With the help of passers-by, Mr P. and Mr G. held the applicant down for several minutes until the arrival of the police at 11.20 a.m. The police arrested the applicant, seized his handgun and the bags containing mobile phones, and took him to the Lefortovo police station in Moscow. In the police station the applicant wrote a “voluntary confession” acknowledging his participation in the robbery. 7. According to the applicant, he had nothing to do with the robbery. He was walking down the street when Mr G. and Mr P. suddenly pushed him in the back, knocked him to the ground and apprehended him. He offered no resistance. The bags and the handgun did not belong to him. Then he was arrested by the police and escorted to the Lefortovo police station, where they arrived at about 12 noon. After admission formalities had been completed, including a personal search in the presence of attesting witnesses, he was taken to an office, seated on a chair and handcuffed to it. Then five or six police officers entered, including Mr S.P. and Mr R., who started to question him about the circumstances of the robbery. He denied his involvement in the robbery. Mr S.P. took out a baseball bat and threatened to use it unless he confessed to the robbery. He refused and Mr S.P. started to beat him on the head with the bat wrapped in a terry towel. The applicant then fell to the floor. Other police officers started to kick him and beat him with the bat and with rubber truncheons. He alleged that the questioning and beatings continued for about five hours. The police officers also threatened to suffocate him with a gas mask, and to use other torture instruments, such as needles and pincers. To avoid further suffering, the applicant wrote the “voluntary confession”. 8. The handwritten confession of 20 March 2002 contains the following statement, followed by the applicant’s signature: “This confession statement has been written by me voluntarily, without any mental or physical pressure from police officers. [I] have read Article 51 of the Constitution, which states that I have the right not to give explanations concerning my conduct.” 9. Subsequently, the applicant was placed in a temporary isolation ward (“IVS”) at the Lefortovo police station. 10. The following day, on 21 March 2002, the applicant and his counsel lodged complaints with the investigator, Ms K., alleging that he had been ill-treated by the police officers. The applicant’s counsel also asked the investigator to arrange a medical expert examination of the applicant in order to establish when the injuries had occurred and how they had been inflicted. The request contained a description and diagram of the applicant’s injuries. 11. Still on 21 March 2002, a face-to-face confrontation between the applicant and Mr G. and Mr P. took place. They testified that on 20 March 2002 they had apprehended the applicant, who had offered resistance and had tried to escape. Although they acknowledged having knocked the applicant to the ground, they denied having beaten him. They also testified that they had not seen anybody beating him during his apprehension and subsequent arrest. They stated that the applicant had not resisted his arrest by the police. 12. Following the above, the investigator refused the request of the applicant’s counsel for a medical expert examination, pointing out that the injuries could have been caused by Mr G. and Mr P. when they apprehended the applicant. However, the applicant was taken to a hospital for a superficial medical examination. 13. According to a medical certificate of 21 March 2002, the applicant received medical aid at 6.45 p.m. at Moscow hospital no. 111 in connection with “multiple traumatic lesions on the head, chest and the left side of the lower back”. It was also noted in the certificate that the applicant’s medical condition was compatible with detention in the IVS. 14. According to the applicant, after the medical examination he was taken to another office in the Lefortovo police station. For about thirty minutes several police officers beat him up again in an attempt to extract unspecified information of which he was not in possession. 15. On 22 March 2002 the applicant was placed in remand prison IZ‑77/1, where he was examined by a doctor. The doctor recorded the same injures as those mentioned above. He made the following entry in the applicant’s prison medical file: “On 22 March 2002 the first medical examination was carried out. Diagnosis: multiple traumatic lesions on the head, chest and the left side of the lower back.” 16. On the same date the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor, alleging that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police during his detention on 20 and 21 March 2002. The investigator, Ms K., also sent the complaints which the applicant and his counsel had lodged with her on 21 March 2002 to the prosecutor’s office for further processing. 17. Still on 22 March 2002 the applicant’s counsel lodged with the investigator, Ms K., a written request for a visual examination of the applicant to be carried out. According to the applicant, the request was made in order to confirm the bodily injuries inflicted on him by the police on 21 March 2002. However, the text of the request contained no reference to that. The investigator refused the request, noting that a medical examination of the applicant had already been conducted on 21 March 2002. 18. On 28 March 2002 the investigator, Ms K., questioned three police officers (Mr Gal., Mr Pop. and Mr Zav.) as witnesses in the applicant’s criminal case. They stated that on 20 March 2002 they had been on duty at the Lefortovo police station. At about 12 noon, following the instructions of a superior officer, they picked up a suspect from a police unit in the Aviamotornaya metro station and escorted him to the Lefortovo police station. The suspect was handcuffed. He was wearing a shoulder holster with a gun. In the station, the suspect was searched in the presence of two attesting witnesses and identified as the applicant. His gun was seized. The police officers added that a shop assistant carrying four big handbags had accompanied them to the police station. They were not asked whether the applicant had had visible injuries on his body at that time and gave no information in that respect. 19. On 26 April 2002 the assistant prosecutor at the Lefortovo inter-district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unsubstantiated. The decision read as follows: “... On 19 March 2003 [sic] the Lefortovo inter-district prosecutor’s office of Moscow received [the applicant’s] confession to robbery ... Later, in the course of questioning, [the applicant] complained that police officers had used physical force in order to make him confess. He could not give any information as to the names of the police officers who had arrested him, their distinguishing features, location of the office [where the alleged ill-treatment took place] or other facts. During the inquiry it was also established that the applicant is registered with a neuropsychology clinic ... and had not been drafted into the army owing to a neurological disease. Thus, [his] allegations [of ill-treatment] have not been confirmed.” The prosecutor’s decision contained no information concerning any actions taken to verify the applicant’s version of events. The medical documents attesting to his injuries were not mentioned either. 20. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this decision to the prosecutor’s office, complaining of the perfunctory nature of the inquiry into his allegations of ill-treatment at the police station. 21. Approximately two and a half years later, on 24 September 2004, the supervising prosecutor set aside the decision of 26 April 2002 refusing to institute criminal proceedings and sent the case back to the prosecutor’s office for further inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. 22. On 7 October 2004 the Lefortovo deputy prosecutor again refused to open a criminal case. The decision read as follows: “It follows from the applicant’s complaint that on 20 March 2002 he had been brought to the Lefortovo police station of Moscow by two police officers, [Mr] S.P. and [Mr] R. [sic], where he was handcuffed to a chair and beaten with a baseball bat wrapped in a terry towel in order to make him confess to a robbery ... In the course of the additional inquiry the police officer at the Lefortovo police station, [Mr] S.P., was questioned. He explained that on 20 March 2002 [the applicant] had been arrested and questioned in connection with a robbery. The applicant was informed of his rights provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 51 of the Constitution against his signature. He gave his testimony voluntarily and without any physical or psychological pressure. None of the police officers used any violence [against the applicant] during his arrest, while escorting him to the police station, or in the station. It was impossible to question the [former] police officer at the Lefortovo police station, [Mr] R., as he had been discharged from the police. Several attempts were made to summon him to the prosecutor’s office. So, on 4 and 7 October 2004 the head of the Lefortovo police station was ordered to send a police officer to do that. According to the information submitted by the head ..., on 4 and 7 October 2004 a police officer went to [Mr] R.’s address, but no one answered the door. According to the neighbours, he had not lived in the flat for a long time. Mr Sap., Mr Sub. and Mr Paut. [police officers at the Lefortovo police station], questioned in the course of the inquiry, stated that they had not met [the applicant] while on duty [on the relevant day]. They did not exercise physical or psychological pressure on him. The investigator of the investigative division at the Lefortovo police station, [Ms] K., stated that she had been in charge of a criminal investigation into robbery ... The applicant was arrested on suspicion of his involvement in the crime and taken to the police station. During the initial investigative actions he made no complaints of any ill-treatment by police officers. Neither she nor any other officer used physical or psychological force against [the applicant]. In the course of the present inquiry it has been impossible to establish the involvement in the events under investigation of any other police officers who were on duty at the police station and in charge of arrestees at the relevant time.” The medical documents confirming the applicant’s injuries were not mentioned. 23. On 3 December 2004 the supervising prosecutor set aside the decision of 7 October 2004 and instructed the prosecutor to question Mr R. and to arrange a medical expert examination of the injuries sustained by the applicant in March 2002. 24. Pursuant to a decision by the prosecutor of 7 December 2004, a medical expert examined the applicant’s medical file. In his report of 16 February 2005, he stated as follows: “According to medical file no. 1812, at 6.45 p.m. on 21 March 2002 [the applicant] went to the outpatient trauma unit of Moscow hospital no. 111 ... In [his?] words, he was beaten up by unknown persons at about 11 a.m. on 20 March 2002. [Results of the examination]: grazes around the hairline (forehead). Violet and yellow bruising around the left shoulder blade and a strip of bruising measuring 1.5 x 6 [cm] in the lumbar area. Palpation [is] painful. Diagnosis: traumatic lesions (ушибы) in the soft tissue of the forehead, left shoulder blade and the left side of the lower back. There are no other entries in the medical file. Conclusions 1. The following injuries on [the applicant] were recorded at the trauma unit: - grazes (ссадины) on the forehead, - bruises (кровоподтёки) on the left shoulder blade, - a strip of bruising on the left side of the lower back. The above-mentioned injuries could have been caused by blunt solid objects and did not cause damage to [the applicant’s] health. The bruises resulted from contact with blunt object(s) and could have been caused by blows with the object(s) as well as by [the applicant] hitting the objects. The grazes were caused by the sliding of an object against the surface of the skin. 2. As the medical file did not contain a more detailed description of the bruises ... it is impossible to determine the exact time when they were sustained.” 25. On 17 February 2005 the Lefortovo deputy prosecutor again refused to institute criminal proceedings. His decision read as follows: “... As it follows from the police report submitted ... the former police officer [Mr] R. has not been found despite several visits to his address in January and February this year. According to his neighbors, [Mr] R. no longer lives there and comes seldom to his flat; they do not know his place of residence. According to the expert report of 16 February 2005 ... [the applicant] sustained bodily injuries in the form of bruises on his face and body ... As the medical documents contain insufficient information, it was impossible to establish when and how they were inflicted. Thus, despite the measures taken, it was impossible to verify the [applicant’s] allegations.” 26. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to a court about the refusal to institute criminal proceedings. 27. On 6 February 2006 the Basmanny District Court of Moscow found that the applicant’s allegations had been duly examined by the prosecution and had been found unsubstantiated. The District Court rejected the complaint on those grounds, stating: “It follows from the material submitted that the [applicant’s] allegations [of ill-treatment] ... have been examined in the course of the preliminary investigation. Following each inquiry a decision refusing to open a criminal case was issued. The [applicant’s] allegations were also the subject of an internal inquiry carried out by the Internal Security Directorate of the Moscow Police Department ... According to the results of the above inquiries, no convincing, objective and sufficient proof of unlawful conduct by the police officers has been established. According to the conviction judgment by the Lefortovo District Court of Moscow [of 19 April 2004, see below], the [applicant’s] allegations were subject to judicial review in the course of the examination of [his] criminal case on the merits. In its judgment the court assessed them and found them ill-founded. The judgment convicting [the applicant] has entered into legal force. Under such circumstances, there are no grounds for granting the [applicant’s] complaint.” 28. On 21 August 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 6 February 2006 on appeal, reiterating the reasoning of the District Court. 29. Neither the applicant nor his representative were present at the court hearings, whereas the prosecutor was present and addressed the courts. 30. On an unspecified date the applicant was committed for trial before the Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow. The charges against him were brought by the Lefortovo inter-district prosecutor’s office. 31. During the trial the applicant repeatedly raised the issue of his alleged ill-treatment at the police station and argued that his “voluntary confession” had been obtained under duress. 32. The applicant’s wife testified before the trial court that when the applicant had left their home on the morning of 20 March 2002, he had been in good health. 33. Mr G. and Mr P. confirmed their previous testimonies: they had not beaten the applicant while apprehending him, nor had they seen anyone else beating him. They did not remember whether the applicant had had any visible injuries by the time the police arrived. However, Mr G. did not rule out the possibility that he may have caused some injuries to the applicant while apprehending him. 34. The police officers who had arrested the applicant and taken him to the police station also denied any ill-treatment of the applicant on their part. They stated that they did not remember whether he had had any visible injuries at the time of his arrest. 35. On 19 April 2004 the applicant was convicted of illegal possession of a firearm and two counts of robbery with violence, committed by an organised group. The conviction was based, inter alia, on the applicant’s confession statement of 20 March 2002. He was sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment in a colony with a “strict regime”. The court noted in its judgment that on 20 March 2002 the victims of the robbery (Mr G. and Mr P.) had received medical aid in a hospital – Mr G. for a bite on his right hand and Mr P. for an abrasion on his right forearm. 36. On 29 September 2004 the Moscow City Court amended the judgment on appeal, but upheld the sentence. 37. Both courts rejected the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment, referring to the results of the inquiry carried out by the prosecution authorities so far. 38. Neither the application lodged by the applicant for a supervisory review of his conviction nor his numerous complaints to various authorities about procedural irregularities in his criminal case were to any avail. 39. After the applicant’s conviction had become final, he was transferred to a “strict-regime” colony in the Republic of Komi to serve his sentence. The colony is situated about 1,500 km from his home in the Moscow Region. 40. On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant asked the Federal Prison Service (“the FSIN”) to transfer him to a colony closer to his home. In its reply of 11 July 2005 the FSIN refused his request on the grounds that there were no “strict regime” colonies in the Moscow Region. The applicant complained about the refusal to the Moscow City Court, which redirected his complaint to the Ministry of Justice. The latter forwarded the complaint to the FSIN. On 14 April 2006 the FSIN wrote to the applicant informing him that his request had been refused on the same grounds. Following a further complaint submitted by the applicant, the prosecutor’s office issued a formal warning (представление) to the FSIN and asked it to remedy the breach of the applicant’s right to serve the sentence close to his home. In September 2006 the FSIN offered the applicant a transfer to a colony in the Vladimir Region, which directly borders the Moscow Region. On 7 September 2006 the applicant declined the offer for unspecified reasons. 41. In January 2007 the applicant applied to the Ust-Vymskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi for a transfer from the strict-regime colony to a “colony settlement” (another type of colony with less stringent conditions). On 24 January 2007 the court rejected the application without consideration and discontinued the proceedings, since the applicant had not yet acquired the right to ask for a transfer. On 3 April 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi upheld the decision on appeal. On 18 August 2009 the prosecutor’s office lodged an application for supervisory review (надзорное представление) with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi and asked for a fresh examination of the applicant’s case because his transfer request had not been examined on the merits. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown. 42. On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant was released on probation, having served part of his sentence.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Yefremov, Tula Region. 6. On 8 November 2002 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant, who was suspected of murder. The same day he gave an undertaking not to leave town. 7. On 11 November 2002 the applicant was arrested. On 12 November 2002 the Yefremovskiy Town Court of the Tula Region (“the Town Court”) remanded him in custody. His detention was subsequently extended by court order on several occasions. 8. On 20 November 2002 the applicant was formally charged with murder and the illegal acquisition, keeping and wearing of a handgun and ammunition. On 28 February 2003 he was committed to stand trial before the Town Court. 9. On 21 August 2003 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial for three months until 28 November 2003. Neither he nor his counsel were present at the hearing. No ordinary appeal was brought by them against that detention order; however, the applicant challenged the detention order in supervisory review proceedings. 10. On 27 February 2004 the Town Court extended the applicant’s remand in custody from 28 February until 28 May 2004 in his absence. His counsel was not present at the hearing either. Instead of bringing an ordinary appeal, the applicant lodged a request with the court to have supervisory review proceedings initiated in respect of the detention order. 11. On 26 May 2004 the Town Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment, acquitting him of the other charges. He appealed. 12. On 25 August 2004 the Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. The appellate court noted in the operative part of its judgment that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should “remain unchanged”. 13. On 9 September 2004 the applicant’s criminal case file arrived at the Town Court. 14. On 6 October 2004 the Town Court examined a request by the applicant for release and dismissed it, stating: “On 12 November 2002 the court remanded [the applicant] in custody. The reasons for that decision were the risk of him absconding and interfering with the investigation ... The court does not see any reason to grant the request [for release]. Although the conviction of 26 May 2004 was quashed on appeal on 25 August 2004, the case was remitted for retrial ... The appellate court left the preventive measure unchanged. The [applicant’s] reference ... to the deterioration of his health while in detention is [inconclusive]. In the remand prison [he] receives the necessary medical assistance.” The decision was amenable to appeal; however, it appears that no appeal was lodged. 15. On 25 February 2005 the Town Court ruled that the applicant was considered to have been detained “pending trial” from 9 September 2004 and that the maximum period of detention of that kind was to expire on 9 March 2004 [sic]. It extended his detention for three months until 9 June 2005. On 23 March 2005 the detention order was upheld on appeal. 16. On 15 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia, following the applicant’s supervisory review complaint, initiated supervisory review proceedings in respect of the detention order of 21 August 2003 (see paragraph 9 above) and remitted the case to the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court for examination. 17. On 24 October 2005 the Presidium reviewed and upheld the detention order of 21 August 2003. It found that there had been no violation of the applicant’s rights as a result of his remand in custody being extended in his and his lawyer’s absence. The prosecutor was present at the hearing before the Presidium, but the applicant and his representative were not. 18. On 3 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia accepted the applicant’s complaint and initiated supervisory review proceedings in respect of the detention order of 27 February 2004 (see paragraph 10 above). It ordered that the complaint be examined by the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court. 19. On 23 January 2006 the Presidium acknowledged that the applicant’s defence rights had been violated as a result of his remand in custody being extended in his and his lawyer’s absence, quashed the detention order of 27 February 2004 and remitted the matter to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 20. On 23 January 2006 the Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. He appealed. 21. On 21 February 2006 the Town Court conducted a new hearing on the issue of the applicant’s detention from 28 February until 28 May 2004 and authorised his detention for that period. He and his counsel were present at the hearing and made oral submissions. That detention order was upheld on appeal on 24 March 2006. 22. On 26 April 2006 the Tula Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal, but reduced his sentence to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. 23. It appears that in 2010 he was released on probation, having served only part of his sentence.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Koper. 5. On 17 November 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Koper District Court concerning the division of joint property. 6. On 24 September 1997 the Koper District Court rejected the applicant’s claim on procedural grounds. The applicant appealed. 7. On 18 February 1998 the Koper Higher Court partially upheld the appeal of the applicant and remitted the case back to the first instance court. 8. On 14 August 2001 the Koper District court issued a partial judgment. Both parties appealed. 9. On 22 October 2002 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the appeals. 10. On 1 March 2007 the Koper District Court issued a judgment concerning the remainder of the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. 11. On 18 November 2008 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal concerning the decision on the main issue. The court however annulled the decision on the costs of proceedings and remitted that issue back to the first instance court. 12. On 18 August 2008 the Koper District Court issued a decision on the costs of proceedings. The applicant appealed. 13. On 18 November 2008 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 10 December 2008. 14. On 29 September 2008 the applicant lodged an application for settlement with the State Attorney’s Office with a view to reaching an agreement on just satisfaction on account of the delays in the civil proceedings. 15. On 26 May 2008 the State Attorney’s Office dismissed the applicant’s claim. 16. On 25 November 2009 the applicant, relying on Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), lodged a claim with the Koper Local Court seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 5,800 for non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the length of the civil proceedings. 17. On 25 November 2010 the Koper Local Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. 18. On 17 January 2011 the Koper Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case back to the first instance court. 19. In the course of proceedings, the State on 5 April 2011 acknowledged the claim of the applicant in the amount of 1,200 EUR. 20. On 16 November 2011 the Koper Local Court gave a judgment. The court found that the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached and that, in addition to the 1,200 EUR, the State was to pay a further EUR 420 to the applicant for non-pecuniary damages and to reimburse the applicant EUR 275 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings. In determining the amount of compensation, the court considered that the applicant had contributed to the duration of the proceedings by amending her claim several times and submitting written observations directly at the hearings which had as a consequence the adjournment of three hearings. Accordingly it deducted 10% from the amount to be awarded. The applicant appealed. 21. On 17 April 2012 the Koper Higher Court partially upheld the applicant’s appeal and modified the decision, ruling that the State was to pay the applicant in total EUR 2,500 as non-pecuniary damages and further EUR 586 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings. The higher court also noted the applicant’s contribution to the duration of the proceedings.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in the Ivanovo Region. 6. According to the applicant, in 1991, at the age of fifteen, he moved to Russia from Georgia with his parents. In 1998 he settled in Shuya, Ivanovo Region, whereas his parents moved back to Georgia. 7. On 18 November 1999 the Shuya Town Court of the Ivanovo Region found the applicant guilty of extortion and theft of a passport, and sentenced him to three years and one month’s imprisonment. According to the applicant, in order to spare his mother’s feelings, he told the prosecuting authorities that his name was Shermandin Goderziyevich Mazmishvili. On 4 June 2001 the applicant was released on parole. Upon release he was issued with an ID card in the name of Shermandin Goderziyevich Mazmishvili. 8. On 26 April 2005 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of theft and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. Again he claimed that his name was Shermandin Goderziyevich Mazmishvili and presented the relevant ID card. On 1 June 2007 the applicant was released on parole. 9. The applicant was in a relationship with Ms K. On 29 February 2008 Ms K. gave birth to a girl. On 21 September 2009 the applicant was recognised as the girl’s father. On 22 September 2009 the applicant and K. got married. On 20 December 2011 Ms K. gave birth to the couple’s second daughter. According to the Government, Ms K. and her two daughters are Russian nationals. 10. According to the Government, on 19 June 2007 the applicant was found administratively liable for failing to have his residency in Russia duly authorised. 11. On 26 June 2007 the applicant was registered as a migrant under the name of Mazmishvili. The registration remained valid until 26 October 2007. 12. It appears that on an unspecified date the applicant asked the Russian migration authorities to issue him with a Russian passport indicating that his name was Shota Petrovich Adeishvili. Following their refusal, the applicant lodged a claim with the Digora District Court of the Northern Osetiya and Alaniya Republic, asking the court to confirm that he had been residing permanently in Russia since 1991. 13. On 30 October 2007 the District Court granted the applicant’s request. The court based its findings on the applicant’s birth certificate in the name of Shota Petrovich Adeishvili submitted by him, a certificate issued by the Digora municipal authorities and the testimony of Ms G., stating that the applicant had been renting a flat from her since 1991. 14. On 8 July 2008 the applicant received a Russian passport in the name of Shota Petrovich Adeishvili. 15. On 10 February 2010 the regional migration service asked the District Court to quash the judgment of 30 October 2007 and remit the matter for new consideration. 16. On 17 March 2010 the District Court quashed the judgment of 30 October 2007, noting that the certificate confirming the applicant’s residence in Digora had not in fact been issued by the town administration. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration. 17. On 31 March 2010 the District Court noted that the applicant, who had been duly notified of the date and time of the court hearing, had failed to appear in court on two occasions. The Court left the matter without consideration on the merits and discontinued the proceedings. The applicant did not appeal. 18. On 18 April 2010 the migration service terminated the applicant’s Russian citizenship and invalidated his passport. According to the applicant, the migration services transmitted the case file to the prosecuting authorities for further inquiry. He did not inform the Court of the inquiry’s outcome. 19. On 8 July 2010 the applicant was arrested and taken to a police station where he spent the whole day. His passport was confiscated. On the same day an expert from the regional department of the interior confirmed that the applicant’s fingerprints corresponded to those belonging to Shermandin Goderziyevich Mazmishvili. 20. In the evening of 8 July 2010 the applicant was taken to the Shuya Town Court, which started the hearing at 11 p.m. The applicant was represented by a State-appointed lawyer. The Town Court considered that the applicant was Shermandin Goderziyevich Mazmishvili. It found that, as a person without citizenship, he had failed to have his residency in Russia duly authorised. It therefore imposed a fine on him and ordered his expulsion from Russia to Georgia. The court also held that the applicant should be remanded in custody pending expulsion until 8 September 2010. In particular, the court noted as follows: “When deciding whether to expel Sh. G. Mazmishvili and taking into account that the defendant has a family and a minor child, the court sees no reason not to expel [him] in view of the offences he has committed in Russia, his unlawful acquisition of a Russian passport and his lack of employment.” 21. The applicant appealed against the judgment of 8 July 2010 alleging, inter alia, that the State-appointed lawyer had not carried out his defence effectively, and that the court had failed to provide him with a copy of the decision of 17 March 2010 or a record of his own questioning of 14 September 1999. 22. On 26 July 2010 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the judgment of 8 July 2010 on appeal. The applicant was represented by counsel of his own choosing. 23. On 18 August 2010 the police sent the documents concerning the applicant’s expulsion to the Georgian authorities. 24. On 30 August 2010 the President of the Regional Court upheld the judgments of 8 and 26 July 2010. 25. It appears that the regional migration service could not prepare the documents necessary to expel the applicant to Georgia and asked the Town Court to extend the applicant’s detention pending expulsion. 26. On 6 September 2010 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 7 October 2010. The court noted that the Georgian authorities had not yet prepared the documents necessary for the applicant’s expulsion to Georgia. The court considered that the applicant, if released, might abscond or fail to comply with the expulsion order. The applicant’s detention was repeatedly extended by the Town Court. 27. On 3 January 2011 the Georgian authorities informed the regional migration service that a real Shermandin Goderziyevich Mazmishvili was residing in Georgia and it was not possible to issue the requested documents in that name for the applicant’s expulsion to Georgia. 28. On 7 February 2011 the Town Court ordered the applicant’s release. Referring to the information supplied by the Georgian authorities, the court considered that it was not possible to expel the applicant under the name of Mazmishvili. 29. According to the Government, the applicant has not been expelled. He has no document confirming his ID, and the Russian authorities have not established his identity. 30. According to the applicant, the Town Court, when deciding to detain him pending expulsion, took into account a certificate prepared by police captain P. on which it was noted that the applicant “had been involved in car thefts, belonged to the Shuya organised criminal group ... [and] was a drug dealer.” 31. Despite a complaint lodged by the applicant that P. had knowingly disseminated false information about him, on 18 August 2010 the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against P. 32. From 9 July 2010 to 7 February 2011 the applicant was held in a special detention centre in Ivanovo. 33. According to the Government, all the inmates detained with a view to expulsion were held in cells nos. 2, 3 and 4. During the period of the applicant’s detention, the cell population varied from three to sixteen persons in all three cells. On average, the number of persons detained in a cell was four to five. Cell no. Surface area (in square metres) Number of beds 2 19 8 3 34. Each detainee was provided with a mattress, a pillow, sheets and a blanket. The sheets were changed on the days the applicant was allowed to take a shower. According to the relevant ledger, the applicant took showers on 9, 21 and 29 July, 4, 14, 24 and 30 August, 7, 13, 27 and 30 September, 1, 12, 15, 22 and 29 November, 6, 13, 20 and 27 December 2010, and on 13, 19 and 25 January and 1 February 2011. 35. Each cell had a window opening onto a hallway. The window was covered with a metal grill. The light coming from the hallway was sufficient for reading. The window was periodically kept open to ensure proper ventilation of the cell. There was a table and a bench with seating for four persons in each cell. Both the table and the bench were fixed onto the floor. 36. The cells where the applicant was detained from 9 July to 30 September 2010 were not equipped with a toilet. The detainees were taken out of the cell at least twice a day to use the toilet in the building. During the nighttime the inmates had to use buckets placed in the cells. The buckets were emptied and disinfected daily. In September 2010 toilets and wash sinks were installed in all cells of the special detention centre. They became operational in October 2010. 37. Food was provided three times a day. Breakfast consisted of hot tea, sugar and a pastry; lunch comprised of soup, meat or fish with a side dish, and tea with sugar or a fruit drink. The applicant also received food parcels from his family and friends. 38. According to the applicant’s file, he declared a hunger strike twice. Each time he was examined by a paramedic. On a number of occasions ambulance doctors attended to the applicant. 39. The special detention centre had an exercise area measuring 4.66 m by 3.7 m covered with a metal grill. The detainees had one hour’s outdoor exercise daily. 40. The applicant was allowed to telephone his family on several occasions. The internal regulations did not provide for the right to a family visit. 41. The applicant provided the following information as regards his detention in the special detention centre: Period of detention Cell no. Surface area (in square metres) Number of beds Number of inmates From 8 July to 7 September 2010 3 17 8 8 From 8 to 28 September 2010 1 7-8 3 2 From 29 September to end of October 2010 8 15 8 8 Four days in October 2010 9 12 6 4 From end of October to 9 November 2010 4 15 8 6 From 9 to 15 November 2010 1 7-8 3 2 From 15 November to 13 December 2010 4 15 8 6 From 14 to 15 December 2010 1 7-8 3 2 From 16 to 21 December 2010 4 15 8 6 From 22 December 2010 to 4 January 2011 1 7-8 3 2 From 5 January to 7 February 2011 4 15 8 6 42. Prior to the refurbishment of the special detention centre, there had been no toilets or wash sinks in the cell. The inmates had had to use a bucket placed in the cell. It had been emptied twice a day. The inmates had been allowed to use toilets outside the cell twice a day. The toilets had offered no privacy. Six to eight inmates had been taken simultaneously to the lavatory and had had to use the toilet in front of the others waiting for their turn. 43. The toilets installed in the cells offered no privacy either. Only cell no. 8 had a one-metre high partition separating the toilet from the living area of the cell. 44. The applicant did not contest the Government’s submissions as regards the frequency of the showers he had been allowed to take. According to him, the hot water had run out after the first ten minutes. Each time the inmates had had from fifteen to twenty-five minutes to take a shower and to do their laundry. They could use only cold water for the laundry. The sheets, which were old and ragged, had been changed every two weeks. 45. The windows in the cell were covered by two sets of metal bars on both sides. Access to daylight was insufficient. The table and the bench allowed for two persons to eat. The rest of the inmates had to eat sitting on their beds. In cell no. 3 the applicant was given a mattress that was infested with lice. 46. Cell no. 9, which was unofficially called “a disciplinary cell”, had no windows. During the four days the applicant spent in that cell, he was not taken out for outdoor exercise. 47. The daily outdoor exercise lasted thirty minutes and took place in a yard measuring 12 square metres. 48. The applicant had nothing to do while detained at the special detention centre. There was no library, television or radio. He was not allowed to subscribe to a newspaper or a magazine. 49. Breakfast was served at 7 a.m., lunch was served at 3 p.m. and dinner, if any, was served at 5 p.m. Breakfast consisted of a piece of white bread, a mug of hot water and a piece of sugar. No spoon was provided. For lunch inmates received soup with an unpleasant odour and taste, a minced meat cutlet and a piece of rye bread. For dinner they were given a burger and cabbage. The meals were the same every day. Because of the applicant’s condition, he could not eat any of the food served. Drinking water was not provided at all. The foodstuff sent by the applicant’s family quickly perished as no fridge was provided and the applicant had to store the food under his bed.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

7. The applicant was born in 1938 and lived in Kharachoy. She was the mother of Raisa Kosumova, born in 1967, and the widow of Alikhazhi Kosumov, born in 1932. 8. On 7 June 2003 at about 5 p.m. an operational investigative group composed of officers of the Vedenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”), the Vedenskiy District Department of the Interior (“ROVD”), the Criminal Police of the Provisional Task Force of the Russian Ministry of the Interior and the Directorate of the Federal Security Bureau for the Vedenskiy District (“UFSB”), were driving several vehicles along the Dyshne-Vedeno-Kharachoy road, returning from Kharachoy to the village of Vedeno. One of the vehicles of the convoy was blown up and thrown down a steep slope by the explosion into the nearby River Khul‑Khulau. Several officers in the vehicle were wounded and two were killed instantly. 9. After the explosion, the police officers called for reinforcements. In the following hour and fifteen minutes an armoured unit, a reconnaissance unit of the Vedenskiy District military command and a special operations unit of the FSB arrived at the scene. After the reinforcements arrived, unidentified forces started firing mortars at the forested slopes. Shells were exploding on the roadside less than 100 metres from the explosion scene. 10. Meanwhile, the applicant’s daughter was driving her GAZ-66 truck from Vedeno to Kharachoy. As she passed the scene of the explosion, mortar shells started exploding on the roadside. She received a wound to the head and died instantly. Two FSB officers were also wounded and hospitalised. 11. On 16 January 2004 the civil registration office of the Vedenskiy District issued a death certificate (no. 13), certifying that Raisa Kosumova, aged 35, had died on 7 June 2003 in Kharachoy in the Vedenskiy District, from a shell wound to the head. 12. Around the time the applicant’s daughter died, the applicant’s seventy-year-old husband was ill. Concerned for her husband’s health, the applicant hesitated about telling him about their daughter’s death. 13. The applicant’s husband found out about their daughter’s death on 1 July 2003. He could not cope with her loss and died two days later, on 3 July 2003. 14. On 7 June 2003 the District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings into the death of the applicant’s daughter under Article 109 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code (negligent homicide). An on-site inspection and an inspection of the applicant’s daughter’s body were carried out. 15. On 10 June 2003 the chief assistant of the District Prosecutor’s Office sent an order to the Vedenskiy District Temporary Department of the Interior (“VOVD”), the Vedenskiy District ROVD and the UFSB requesting them to carry out without delay the necessary operational-search measures for establishing who had been involved in the death of the applicant’s daughter. 16. On the same day two officers of the Vedenskiy ROVD were questioned about the circumstances of the events of 7 June 2003. 17. On 17 June 2003 a post-mortem examination of the applicant’s daughter’s body was completed. It was established that she had died from a vast penetrating head wound resulting in brain damage. 18. On 29 June 2003 the Vedenskiy District UFSB replied to the request of 10 June 2003, stating that it had appeared impossible to identify the individuals involved in the death of the applicant’s daughter. 19. On 25 July 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. She was questioned on the same day. 20. On 7 August 2003 the criminal proceedings were suspended. The heads of the Vedenskiy District VOVD, ROVD and UFSB were instructed to carry out the necessary operational-search activities with a view to identifying the possible suspects. The applicant was not informed of this decision. 21. For the next two and a half years, the applicant attempted, in vain, to find out how the investigation was progressing, and made various enquiries to the competent domestic authorities. 22. On 20 January 2006, with the help of a lawyer provided to her by the NGO Committee Against Torture, the applicant obtained a reply from the District Prosecutor’s Office and copies of the decisions of 7 June 2003 (instituting criminal case no. 24041), 25 July 2003 (acknowledging her victim status in the proceedings and setting out her procedural rights), and 7 August 2003 (suspending the preliminary investigation for failure to identify those responsible for the events in question). 23. On 16 December 2006 the proceedings were resumed. The decision of 7 August 2003 was found to be unlawful and the investigation incomplete and superficial. A copy of the decision was sent to the applicant. 24. On 19 December 2006 the District Prosecutor’s Office requested the head of central archives at the Ministry of Defence to provide copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the Vedenskiy District Military Commandant’s Office for 7 June 2003. 25. On the same day the investigator of the District Prosecutor’s Office questioned I. P., head of the artillery armament service of military unit no. 6780 based in Vedeno, who stated as follows: “The following procedure is in place for deploying mortar batteries. Once the command has been received, the mortar battery’s officer-on-duty is given an order which includes [such information as]: the number of shells, target coordinates, the time of firing, and the time of ceasefire. The battery’s officer-on-duty transmits the command to the officer-on-duty, who alerts the crew-on-duty and issues an order in accordance with the command received. As soon as the firing has been ceased, the battery’s officer-on-duty reports to the initiator of the firing, then the latter reports to the Command of the United Group Alignment (“UGA”) ... Within twenty-four hours the battery commander files a report in order to write off the ammunitions used, indicating the initiator of the firing, the time, target coordinates, and the number of shells used. The report is then approved by the military unit commander ... and agreed with the local department of the FSB. I then receive the report, and prepare an ammunitions expenditure account. Next, the account and the report are attached to a secret file that I keep. The file is kept for five years and is then destroyed ... I don’t know if the military units of the Ministry of Defence previously deployed on the territory of Vedeno and Dyshne-Vedeno had the same procedures in place.” 26. On 27 December 2006 the District Prosecutor’s Office sent requests to the Vedenskiy District ROVD to establish the whereabouts of officers D. G., V. N., V. K., O. L., M. K. and A. A., who had served there on a contract basis in June 2003. On the same day the District Prosecutor’s Office requested the Igrinskiy District ROVD of the Republic of Udmurtiya to question O. Sh., who had served at the Vedenskiy District ROVD in June 2003 as an expert criminologist. 27. On 28 December 2006 the District Prosecutor’s Office requested the head of the Vedenskiy District ROVD to guarantee the attendance of its officers L. Sh., A. I., Kh. Kh., R. M. and Yus. Sh., for questioning as witnesses to the events of 7 June 2003. 28. On 3 January 2007 the investigator of the District Prosecutor’s Office questioned police officer Kh. Kh., who stated that on 7 June 2003 he had been wounded in the explosion and taken to hospital in Grozny and could not therefore provide any information about the subsequent mortar attack. 29. On 4 January 2007 the investigator questioned police officer A. T., who claimed to have left the scene of the explosion to provide help to the wounded and could not therefore clarify the circumstances of the mortar attack. 30. On 8 January 2007 the District Prosecutor’s Office sought the assistance of the UFSB for the Chechen Republic in establishing the whereabouts of Captain A. K. and Ensign S. Zh., wounded during the mortar attack on 7 June 2003, in order to question them as victims of the attack. On the same day the District Prosecutor’s Office requested the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic to provide them with personal data and contact information for two former officers of the Vedenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office, A. P. and A. An., in order to guarantee their attendance for questioning as witnesses to the events of 7 June 2003. 31. On 15 January 2007 the investigator of the investigations department of the Vedenskiy District VOVD questioned witness S.-Kh. M., who stated that on 7 June 2003 the operational investigative group had arrived in Kharachoy to investigate an attack by members of an illegal armed group on civilians (murder and arson). After the investigative group had left, he, I. D. and A. T. went to the cemetery to bury the victims. From the cemetery they heard an explosion and then saw that a district police vehicle had been blown up. As they approached, they saw that several police officers had been wounded and killed. They started helping by providing first aid and evacuating the wounded. On their way from the gorge to the road leading to Dyshne-Vedeno, he heard detonations. A GAZ-66 truck driving on its way to Kharachoy passed them by. He knew that the driver of the truck was a woman from Kharachoy. Later he knew from the officers who had remained at the scene of the explosion that the detonations he had heard had been mortars. He did not know whether the scene of the explosion had been subjected to shelling by members of an illegal armed group or the federal forces. 32. On 16 January 2007 the criminal proceedings were suspended for failure to identify those responsible for committing the crime. On 16 February 2007 the investigation was subsequently resumed, but suspended again on 16 April 2007. 33. In the meantime, on 17 January 2007 the UFSB for the Chechen Republic informed the District Prosecutor’s Office that in 2003 Captain A. K. and Ensign S. Zh. had served in the UFSB as undercover agents, which was why their whereabouts could not be revealed. 34. On 29 January 2007 witness I. D. was questioned. His statements were consistent with the statement by S.-Kh. M. (see paragraph 31 above). 35. On 30 January 2007 the acting prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office approached the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 for assistance in obtaining information from the UGA as to whether the mortar batteries used on 7 June 2003 had belonged to the military units and divisions deployed in the Vedenskiy District, with an indication of the time of firing, target coordinates and the number of shots. 36. On 6 February 2007 the central archives of the Ministry of Defence provided a document stating as follows: “[On] 7 June 2003 [at] 17.10 on the ROVD officers’ return trip in the UAZ-452 truck from the village of Kharachoy a landmine exploded on the 4.5 metre-high slope near the road, one kilometre south-east of the village of Dyshne-Vedeno. Losses: “200” – 2, “300” – 10 pers.” 37. On 13 February 2007 witness V. N., a former officer of the Vedenskiy District ROVD, was questioned. He stated as follows: “From 17 January 2003 to 8 January 2006 I served under contract as chief of police at the Vedenskiy District ROVD. [I] participated in counterterrorism operations in accordance with the assignments of [the ROVD]. Indeed, on 7 June 2003 at about 8 a.m. the Vedenskiy District ROVD received information that a group of [approximately] eighty rebel fighters had entered the village of Kharachoy and murdered two women, ... set four houses on fire and committed other crimes. At about 2 p.m. as part of a militarised convoy of the operational investigative group, I went to the village to carry out urgent investigative measures. The convoy consisted of six vehicles. After completing the investigative measures, as the convoy was returning back to Vedeno near the gorge three kilometres from Kharachoy, a UAZ vehicle was blown up by an explosive device hidden by the road and fell down the abyss from a height of 20 metres ... The incident was reported to the ROVD and Military Commandant’s Office, and a call for reinforcements was made. The officers of the operational investigative group participated in the evacuation of those killed and wounded [by the explosion]. After the reconnaissance unit arrived, the road was blocked by an armoured personnel carrier (APC). At the same time, at about 5.30 p.m. mortar shelling of the nearby area began. I don’t know who opened fire. The explosions hit the forested area on the mountain slopes; there were about fifteen explosions altogether. Judging by the sound characteristic of a flying shell, I concluded that the firing was from mortars. I don’t know which direction the firing came from, [since] it is impossible to establish the direction of mortar fire. It is difficult to say whether the shelling was carried out by officers of the federal forces or members of the illegal armed group. After the road was blocked by the APC, a civilian GAZ-66 truck stopped not far from the APC. A woman was at the wheel. During the shelling she remained in the truck. The shelling lasted about fifteen minutes. Approximately halfway through one of the shells exploded between the APC and the GAZ-66 truck. After the shelling stopped it was discovered that the woman driver of the GAZ-66 truck had received a shell wound to the head and died on the spot. Two FSB officers were also wounded; I don’t know their names or the nature of their injuries ...” 38. On 14 February and 15 February 2007 respectively witnesses A. An., former chief assistant to the Vedenskiy District prosecutor, and A. A., a former officer of the Vedenskiy District ROVD, were questioned. 39. On 20 February 2007 witness O. L., a former officer of the Vedenskiy District ROVD, was questioned. He stated as follows: “Since 2002 I had served at the Vedenskiy District ROVD on a contract basis. ... On 7 June 2003 information was received that during the night a group of rebel fighters (sixty to eighty individuals) had entered the village of Kharachoy and killed two women, burned down several houses and all the motor vehicles ... At about 13.30 the operational investigative group comprising about fifty officers of the police, prosecutor’s office and FSB [in four vehicles] headed to Kharachoy. At about 14.00 the operational investigative group arrived in Kharachoy. Having split up into several groups, [we] inspected the scene of the incident and gathered the required material. At about 18.00 we decided to head in the direction of Vedeno. The head of the Vedenskiy District ROVD decided to proceed in groups, with two to three minute intervals, since it was suspected that the rebel fighters might be nearby and could attack the convoy ... Having driven about 800 metres from Kharachoy, an unarmoured UAZ truck carrying the head of the ROVD and eleven other individuals was blown up behind us. We stopped, as I understood that one of our vehicles had been blown up. Everybody left the truck and dispersed onto the road ... At that moment we were subjected to shelling from automatic firearms coming from the forested area on the other side of the abyss. The abyss was about 100 metres wide. I think that at least two people were firing at us. FSB officers called for reinforcements and artillery support. Several of our officers started going down the abyss [to provide help to those who were in the UAZ vehicle]. Me and other officers were covering them, firing at the forested area with automatic firearms. The firefight lasted for about twenty minutes and ended after FSB officers launched two grenades in the direction of the forested area with an RPG-7 handheld grenade launcher. The officers of the prosecutor’s office inspected the scene of the attack; the police officers were helping to take the wounded onto the road. We put the wounded into a GAZEL van, and took them to Vedeno. From the direction of Dyshne-Vedeno a GAZ-66 truck was driving towards us ... At that moment a mortar attack began. About three shells hit the forested area and two landed on the road where we were. We immediately hid from the shells under a URAL truck. The interval between strikes was about a minute. The GAZ-66 truck was already approximately 50 metres from us, when a shell exploded next to it. The truck stopped. At that moment the FSB officers got in touch with the military and asked them to cease fire. We got out from under the [URAL] truck and saw that the woman driver of GAZ-66 truck was dead ... Two of our officers were also wounded; I don’t remember who exactly. The firing was from mortars, as a characteristic roar was clearly heard before each explosion. I cannot say where the firing was conducted from, since we were in a gorge, and the echo could be heard from everywhere ...” 40. On 21 March 2007 witness D. G., a former officer of the Vedenskiy District ROVD, was questioned. He stated as follows: “From 19 June 2002 to 19 June 2003 I served under contract at the Vedenskiy District ROVD ... On 7 June 2003 [as part of the operational investigative group] I went to the village of Kharachoy, where during the night of 7 June 2003 about eighty unidentified [members of an illegal armed group] had killed several women and burned down several houses and cars. On the return trip from the scene of the incident, [on the road running through forested mountain slopes] between the villages of Kharachoy and Dyshne-Vedeno, a landmine exploded, as a result of which a UAZ truck carrying officers of the Vedenskiy District ROVD was thrown down the abyss. Thereupon, [the convoy] was subjected to shelling. The shelling was carried out with automatic firearms coming from the forested mountain area by members of the illegal armed group. Later, there was an artillery attack. [This was clear judging by] the characteristic sound and the presence of characteristic “funnels” on the ground. It is difficult to say which direction the artillery attack was conducted from as the events date back to more than three years ago ...” 41. On 25 April 2007 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 informed the acting prosecutor of the Vedenskiy District that pursuant to their request of 30 January 2007, an enquiry had been sent to the commander of the UGA and upon receipt of the reply the requested information would be sent separately. 42. On 16 May 2007 witness V. K., a former officer of Vedenskiy District ROVD, was questioned. With regard to the circumstances of the mortar fire, he claimed to have been unable to say whether the firing was from mortars or artillery equipment, or to say who had conducted it. However, he stated that he had seen shell bursts and estimated that there had been about twenty of them. It was difficult in the circumstances to determine which direction the firing was conducted from. 43. On 20 September 2007 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the decision of 16 April 2007 suspending the investigation of the case before the Shalinskiy Inter-District Investigation Department (Шалинский межрайонный следственный отдел следственного управления Следственного комитета при прокуратуре Российской Федерации по Чеченской Республике). 44. On 20 December 2007 its head found that there were no grounds for quashing the decision. 45. On 21 March 2008 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the above decision before the Vedenskiy District Court (“the District Court”). 46. On 14 April 2008 the District Court held that the decision of 20 December 2007 had been unlawful, unjustified and premature, and instructed the District Prosecutor’s Office to resume the investigation. In particular, the court pointed out the need to identify the person who had given the order to use heavy weapons without precisely calculating the target area or ensuring that the relevant area had been cordoned off beforehand. Furthermore, it considered it necessary to obtain relevant information from the central archives of the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior and the FSB with respect to the mortar fire executed on 7 June 2003. 47. On 10 July and 28 July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer enquired with the head of the Shalinskiy Inter-District Investigation Department whether the judgment of 14 April 2008 had been complied with. On 20 July and 9 August 2008 respectively he was informed that the investigation of the criminal case had never been resumed. 48. The applicant challenged the idleness of the Shalinskiy Inter-District Investigation Department before the District Court, which on 19 August 2008 found its inactivity unlawful. 49. On 7 September 2008 the investigation of the case was transferred from the District Prosecutor’s Office to the Shalinskiy Inter-District Investigation Department. 50. On 27 February 2009 the investigation was resumed. The following instructions were given to the investigator of the Shalinskiy Inter-District Investigation Department: “- to join to the material of criminal case no. 24041 as evidence copies of all necessary documents from the criminal case opened into the causing of bodily harm to officers of the Vedenskiy District ROVD and FSB as a result of the explosion of a UAZ-452 vehicle by an unidentified explosive device on 7 June 2003; - to question as witnesses all the officers of the Vedenskiy District ROVD and FSB driving in the convoy ... at the moment of the mortar attack, including regarding the issue of who in particular had been contacted [to give the order] to use mortar fire; - to establish the owner of the GAZ-66 truck ...; - to obtain from the central archives of the Ministry of Defence copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the Vedenskiy District Military Commandant’s Office for 7 June 2003 and join them to the case material; - obtain from the headquarters of the UGA information on whether the mortar batteries used on 7 June 2003 belonged to military units and military divisions deployed in the Vedenskiy District of the Chechen Republic, with an indication of the time of firing, the target area and the number of shots; - to carry out other necessary investigative measures; and - to take a lawful and justified decision on the criminal case based on the results of the investigative measures conducted.” 51. On 6 March 2009 the investigator of the Shalinskiy Inter-District Investigation Department requested the head of central archives at the Ministry of Defence to provide copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the Vedenskiy District Military Commandant’s Office for 7 June 2003. On the same day the investigator requested the temporary district police (ОГ ВОГО и П МВД России по Веденскому району Чеченской Республики) to obtain information from the UGA headquarters about the mortar batteries used on 7 June 2003 by the military units and divisions deployed in the Vedenskiy District, with an indication of the time of firing, the target area and the number of shots. 52. On 13 March 2009 the investigator questioned witness R. M., an officer of the Vedenskiy District ROVD, whose statements were similar to the statement by Kh. Kh. (see paragraph 28 above). 53. On 19 March and 27 March 2009 respectively the investigator questioned the applicant’s sons, A. Kasumov (Kosumov) and A.-K. Kasumov (Kosumov), who stated that their sister had been transporting freight with their family’s GAZ-66 truck, and on 7 June 2003 had been on her way back from the village of Argun where she had been taking some construction stone. 54. On 4 April 2009 the temporary district police replied to the investigator’s request of 6 March 2009, stating that it did not have the information requested and advising the investigator to apply to the Vedenskiy District Military Commandant’s Office. 55. On the same day the investigator of the Shalinskiy Inter-District Investigation Department granted victim status to the applicant’s daughter’s sister-in-law, the owner of the GAZ-66 truck. 56. Between 5 April 2009 and 18 June 2010 the proceedings were suspended and reopened five times. 57. In the meantime, on 22 April 2009 the head of central archives at the Ministry of Defence replied that the military action logbook of the Vedenskiy District Military Commandant’s Office were classified, so in order for the documents to be sent to the investigator the latter had to provide the head of central archives with a classified postal address. 58. On 18 June and 30 June 2009 the investigator of the Shalinskiy Inter-District Investigation Department made further requests to the head of central archives at the Ministry of Defence for copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the Vedenskiy District Military Commandant’s Office for 7 June 2003, indicating the address where the requested documents could be sent. 59. Meanwhile, on 22 June 2009 the investigator questioned witness S. M., chief detective of the criminal investigation department of the Vedenskiy District Department of the Interior (“OVD”), who stated as follows: “We [undertook steps] to identify those involved in the blowing up of the [UAZ vehicle] and the mortar fire which had caused [the applicant’s daughter’s] death ... Based on the results of the measures taken, [we] identified the individuals who had blown up the UAZ vehicle ..., but the involvement of [those individuals] in the mortar fire was not proved. In this connection we repeatedly submitted requests to the Vedenskiy District military commandant in order to establish the involvement of mortar batteries of the Russian Ministry of Defence deployed in the Vedenskiy District of the Chechen Republic [in the events of 7 June 2003]; however, we have never received any reply.” 60. On 30 June, 6 July and 14 July 2009 the investigator questioned witnesses A. S., A. Tl. and A. G., detectives of the criminal investigation department of the Vedenskiy District OVD, who gave statements similar to that given by witness S. M. 61. On the resumption of the proceedings, on 18 June 2010 the acting head of the Shalinskiy Inter-District Investigation Department instructed the investigator to, inter alia, request from the Vedenskiy District Military Commandant’s Office and join to the case file pertinent information on the divisions of the Russian Ministry of Defence deployed in the vicinity of the scene of the events of 7 June 2003 which were armed with mortars, as well as information on the flying range of 82mm and 120mm mortar shells. 62. On the same date, in compliance with the above instructions, the investigator sent relevant requests to the head of the Vedenskiy District OVD, the Vedenskiy District military commandant, the head of the Vedenskiy District UFSB and the commander of the UGA. 63. On 21 June 2010 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 7 July 2010. It appears that the investigation was suspended and reopened again several times thereafter. 64. On 4 July 2011 the head of forensics at the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Prosecutor’s Office for the Chechen Republic stated that the case material in criminal case no. 24041 had revealed significant shortcomings in the way the preliminary investigative measures had been carried out. Instructions for further investigation were given to the investigator. It was requested, in particular, that all the FSB officers who had been involved in the events of 7 June 2003 be questioned, since it appeared from a number of witness statements that it had been FSB officers who had asked unidentified individuals for mortar fire support, and it had subsequently been at their request that the mortar shelling had been stopped. 65. On 17 July 2011 the investigation was suspended yet again. It was later resumed on 24 August 2011.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1982 and lived in Novocheboksarsk before the arrest. 5. On 20 November 2008 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of rape. 6. Between 22 November 2008 and 7 September 2009 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-77/3 in Moscow. The parties submitted differing information about the material conditions of his detention. 7. The applicant claimed that the facility was overcrowded. Cell 517, in which he stayed throughout his detention, measured 24 sq. m and accommodated up to twelve inmates. Walls were mouldy and the lavatory pan was not separated from the rest of the cell. Ventilation did not function; no toiletries were distributed and the bedding was ragged. The food was of low quality. The detainees were allowed to take a shower only once per week. In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted two identically‑worded statements by his cellmates, who – without further detail – declared that they “fully support[ed] Mr Istratov’s complaint to the European Court”. 8. The Government submitted a number of certificates issued by the director of remand prison IZ-77/3 on 18 June 2012, which demonstrated that the applicant was held in four cells having the following characteristics: It follows from the certificates that the applicant was provided with bedding and toiletries and afforded daily one-hour-long outdoor exercise, a weekly shower and access to washing facilities. There was forced ventilation and artificial lighting in the cells. In addition, the windows were not covered by shutters, allowing natural light to penetrate into the cells, and were equipped with a small opening pane that provided access to fresh air. Lavatory pans were separated from the rest of the cells by a brick partition and were located two metres away from dining tables. In addition, all four cells were equipped with a water tap with hot and cold running water. Heating was provided during the winter season. 9. The Governement also submitted copies of the prison population register which covered two weeks out of each month during the period of the applicant’s detention and presented the following information about the numbers of sleeping places in the cells and their actual occupancy: 10. It appears that the applicant complained to the Moscow city prosecutor about the conditions of his detention. In his reply of 14 December 2010 the prosecutor acknowledged that “not every detainee was afforded the [statutory] standard of four square metres due to overpopulation of the prison”. 11. Some time later the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in connection with inadequate conditions of detention in remand prison IZ‑77/3. On 7 June 2012, the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow examined the claim and held that: “According to a prison population certificate issued by the director of remand prison IZ-3 of Moscow, cell 608 measures 34.02 sq. m and is equipped with 12 sleeping places. Cell 207 measures 31.17 sq. m and is equipped with 14 sleeping places. Cell 517 measures 37.75 sq. m and is equipped with 12 sleeping places and cell 510 measures 13.45 sq. m and is equipped with 4 sleeping places. It follows from the case file that Mr Istratov was always provided with a separate sleeping place and that the number of detainees never exceeded that of sleeping places. ... It was established ... that the applicant’s argument about the overpopulation of the cells he had been held in, [affording as a result] less than 4 sq. m per person, had been substantiated. However, considering that Mr Istratov did not complain that he had been afforded personal space below the sanitary standard (4 sq. m) ... and was always provided with a separate sleeping place ... the court considers it appropriate to reject Mr Istratov’s claim.” 12. On 12 May 2009 the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty and gave him a custodial sentence. The applicant appealed, complaining about an erroneous interpretation of law and improper assessment of evidence by the District Court. 13. On 12 August 2009 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 14. On 21 April 2009 the applicant lodged the first letter with the Court, briefly stating that he was detained in remand prison IZ-77/3 of Moscow, that his Convention rights were violated, and asking the Court for an application form. 15. By letter of 29 May 2009 the Registry sent the application form to the applicant, requesting to return it by 24 July 2009 at the latest and informing him that failure to comply with the instruction could have impact on the date of introduction of the complaint. 16. On 4 December 2009 the applicant submitted the completed application form which reached the Registry on 7 January 2010.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1972 and before his arrest lived in Kerch. In 2000 he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis. It remains unknown whether the applicant received any treatment for this condition while at liberty. 5. On 31 January 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed an armed robbery and was taken to a police station. He claimed that he had been physically ill-treated at the police station and forced to sign a waiver of his right to a lawyer. However, he did not provide any documentary evidence that he sustained injuries on that date. The applicant also alleged, without providing further details or any evidence, that he had not been given enough time to prepare his defence. On the same date the applicant was questioned without a lawyer being present. 6. On 27 April 2009 the Kerch Town Court found the applicant guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon and armed robbery, sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of all his property. The conviction was based on various items of evidence, including statements made by the applicant himself at the trial, in which he admitted to having bought a weapon and broken into a flat to rob an old woman. The applicant did not appeal against the judgment. 7. On an unspecified date he lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court and complained that the evidence against him had been falsified, that the first-instance court had not examined the witnesses and evidence properly, and that his guilt had not been properly established. He did not complain about the lack of access to a lawyer or the insufficient time to prepare his defence. On 15 October 2009 the Supreme Court rejected his cassation appeal as unfounded. The applicant received the copy of this decision on 27 October 2009. 8. On 10 January 2011 the Court asked the applicant to provide copies of relevant documents from the criminal case file. The applicant applied to the first-instance court in this respect. On 16 March 2011 the president of the first-instance court rejected the request, noting that there was no legal basis in domestic law. 9. On several occasions the applicant requested that the first-instance court give him access to the case file, but to no avail. 10. Between 1 February and 26 March 2009 the applicant was held in the Simferopol Temporary Detention Facility (ITT). Between 26 March and 7 July 2009 he remained in the medical unit of the Simferopol Pre-trial Detention Facility (SIZO). According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention in the ITT and the SIZO were deplorable. 11. Between 7 and 13 July 2009 the applicant was held in Prison no. 7 for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis. 12. Between 13 July and 14 August 2009 the applicant was held in the specialist tuberculosis hospital in Prison no. 61. 13. On 14 August 2009 the applicant returned to Prison no. 7 and remained there until 1 December 2010. According to the applicant, in the autumn the temperature in the cells was around 12oС, while in winter it was only two degrees warmer than outdoors. The windows in the prison cells were covered with polyethylene sheets instead of glass, the cells were damp, and the food was inadequate. The applicant did not provide any further details about the cells or the food. 14. The Government argued that the applicant’s description of the conditions in Prison no. 7 was inaccurate. According to them, the prison was heated by its own boiler plant, which in 2009 began operating on 21 October, while in 2010 it began on 8 October. During the autumn-winter periods of 2009-11 the temperature in the prison premises was: 18-20oC in the residential area, 20-22oC in the medical facilities, and 25-27oC in the bath-and-laundry wing. All the windows in the prison were properly glazed prior to the beginning of the cold season. The cells had natural ventilation. The humidity in the cells was measured daily. The level was 44%, which was normal. The food which the applicant received was in compliance with national legislation. The Government supported their description of the conditions in Prison no. 7 by certificates issued by the prison administration. 15. On 1 December 2010 the applicant was sent to Simferopol Prison no. 102 for healthy detainees. He was detained there until 27 January 2011. 16. From 27 January to 9 February 2011 the applicant was detained in Prison no. 7. 17. From 9 February 2011 onwards the applicant was detained in Prison no. 102. 18. According to the applicant, on 1 February 2009 he informed the ITT paramedic that he was suffering from tuberculosis. According to the Government, the applicant did not inform the ITT administration that he had any health problems. 19. On 5 February 2009 a radiography examination revealed changes in the applicant’s lungs and it was recommended that he be examined by a specialist. 20. On 9 February 2009 the applicant underwent blood and sputum tests in Kerch Municipal TB Hospital no. 1 and was examined by a specialist. On the same date the ITT administration asked the TB hospital to assess whether the applicant required medical treatment and isolation in connection with his tuberculosis. 21. On 2 March 2009 the applicant underwent another radiology examination in the TB hospital. The radiologist who conducted the examination noted that the applicant had “disseminated infiltrated TB”. However, laboratory tests carried out on the same date did not confirm that diagnosis, having revealed no tuberculosis bacteria in the applicant’s blood and sputum. 22. On 19 March 2009 the doctors of the TB hospital, having studied the results of the above-mentioned medical tests and examinations, concluded that (i) the changes in the applicant’s lungs discerned from the radiography images were post-tuberculosis scars indicating that his tuberculosis had been cured; (ii) there were no tuberculosis bacteria in the applicant’s blood and sputum; (iii) the applicant did not need medical treatment or isolation; and (iv) he fell within category 5.1 (see the Order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine no. 384 of 9 June 2006 below). Those conclusions were sent to the ITT administration. 23. On 26 March 2009, following the applicant’s arrival at the SIZO, it was established that his tuberculosis had reactivated. He was placed in the SIZO medical unit and started receiving anti-tuberculosis medication. He also underwent an unspecified number of medical tests aimed at establishing the exact type of his tuberculosis. The applicant did not provide further details about the tuberculosis treatment he received in the SIZO. 24. On 8, 9 and 10 July 2009 the applicant underwent sputum tests and a radiography examination of the thorax. 25. Between 13 July and 14 August 2009 the applicant underwent bronchoscopy examination and was diagnosed with recurrent infiltrative tuberculosis and chronic bronchitis. He was prescribed treatment for his diseases, which he subsequently received. The case-file contains a certificate noting that the treatment for tuberculosis which the applicant received from 13 to 22 July 2009 was “ineffective”. 26. On 17 August and 19 August 2009 the applicant underwent a microscopic sputum examination. 27. On 8 October 2009 the applicant underwent a radiography examination of the thorax. 28. On 28 October 2009 the applicant’s medical treatment for tuberculosis was modified. 29. On 8 December 2009 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who diagnosed him with cervical and thoracic osteochondrosis. 30. On 17 December 2009 the applicant underwent another sputum test. 31. On 20 January 2010 a radiography examination of the applicant’s thorax revealed “some positive dynamics” in the state of his lungs. 32. On 22 April 2010 the applicant was examined by a neuropathologist and diagnosed with osteochondrosis of the lumbar spine. 33. On 27 April 2010 the applicant underwent another radiography examination of the thorax. 34. On 28 April 2010 the applicant underwent a radiography examination of the spine and was diagnosed with diffuse osteoporosis and osteosclerosis. On the same date he was examined by a neuropathologist, who prescribed him medication for those diseases. He subsequently received that medication. No further information about the gravity of the applicant’s osteoporosis, osteosclerosis and osteochondrosis or their progress was made available to the Court. 35. On 30 April 2010 the applicant was examined by a doctor. On 5 May 2010 he underwent an electrocardiogram, and spirography and sputum tests. 36. On 11 May 2010 the applicant was again examined by the doctor, who diagnosed him with chronic bronchitis and prescribed medication, which the applicant subsequently received. The applicant did not inform the Court about the progress of his bronchitis. 37. On 14 July 2010 the applicant’s anti-tuberculosis treatment was modified. 38. On 4 August 2010 the applicant underwent a sputum test, which revealed that the tuberculosis bacteria were not increasing. 39. On 11 August 2010 the applicant underwent another radiography examination of the thorax. 40. On 5 October 2010 the applicant underwent another sputum test, which revealed no tuberculosis bacteria. 41. On 3 November 2010 the applicant underwent a radiography examination of the thorax. 42. The applicant’s anti-tuberculosis treatment was completed on 26 November 2010 because he had recovered. He was registered as a person requiring regular follow-up radiography examinations of the lungs. 43. On 27 January 2011 the applicant underwent laboratory tests and a chest X-ray, which confirmed that he had recovered from tuberculosis and no longer required treatment. 44. The applicant stated before the Court, without having submitted any evidence or further details, that his eyesight had deteriorated as a result of the anti-tuberculosis treatment, and that he had been allergic to the anti-tuberculosis medication he had received.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant, Mr Ruslan Nushravanovich Gasanov, was a Russian national, who had been born in 1979 and lived in Vyshniy Volochek. 5. On 20 April 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug‑related offences. 6. During several periods between July 2006 and May 2008, the applicant was detained in the police ward (IVS) of Vyshniy Volochek in the Tver Region. He claimed, in particular, that the cells of the ward were overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition. 7. On 29 January 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence. 8. By letter submitted on 20 June 2012, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They acknowledged that Mr Gasanov had been “detained in the conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention” and stated their readiness to pay him 5,000 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction. 9. By letter of 24 August 2012 the applicant’s representative notified the Court of Mr Gasanov’s acceptance of the terms of the Government’s declaration. 10. In a further letter of 25 September 2012 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that on 5 September 2012 the applicant had died and that Ms V. Pavlova and Ms L. Semyonova, the applicant’s grandmother and aunt respectively, intended to pursue his application before the Court. 11. On 31 October 2012 the Government requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases on account of the applicant’s death.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

7. All the applicants are relatives of Mr I. Cheban, as specified in the Appendix. 8. On 23 December 2000 I. Cheban was struck by a car when crossing a street in the city of Chernivtsi. Following the accident he died in a hospital. 9. On 30 December 2000 the Chernivtsi regional police department refused to open criminal proceedings in connection with the accident, noting that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T., the driver of the car. 10. On 16 January 2001 the Chernivtsi city prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 30 December 2000 as unfounded and instituted criminal proceedings for causing death by careless driving. 11. On 16 March, 23 August, 17 September 2001, 15 May 2002, 11 July and 27 December 2003 the Chernivtsi regional police department terminated the investigations on the grounds that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T. 12. Following the applicants’ complaints, all those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities as unsubstantiated and further investigations were ordered. When quashing those decisions, the supervising authorities held that the evidentiary basis had been incomplete and that the investigations had not been carried out thoroughly. In particular, on 10 February 2004 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Chernivtsi quashed the decision of 27 December 2003 as unfounded and noted that serious contradictions in the case file had still not been removed, despite numerous orders to the investigators dealing with the case. The court considered that it was necessary to carry out additional investigative measures and expert examinations. 13. On 6 April 2005 the Chernivtsi regional police department terminated the investigation on the grounds that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T. The police referred to the results of expert examinations suggesting that T. had had no technical possibility of avoiding the accident; at the same time the materials of the file suggested that I. Cheban had violated the traffic rules. 14. On 6 January 2006 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Chernivtsi upheld that decision, noting that it was lawful and substantiated. 15. On 14 March 2006 and 10 April 2007 the Chernivtsi Region Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kherson. 6. In 1980 the applicant sustained a craniocerebral injury and underwent surgery for a brain hematoma. 7. In 1993 the applicant sustained another craniocerebral injury, following which he started to suffer from epileptic attacks. According to the applicant, since that time the attacks usually occur twice a week. 8. The applicant was designated as Category 2 (medium-level) disabled on account of his poor health. 9. At about 9.30 a.m. on 24 March 2006 the applicant was standing at a trolleybus station when T. allegedly clipped him slightly while attempting to park his car. A conflict arose between them, with T. punching the applicant in the face and then throwing some further punches at him. 10. On the same day the applicant complained to the Suvorivskyy District Police Department of Kherson (“the Police Department”) about T. The police registered the complaint and directed the applicant to a forensic medical expert for assessment. 11. On 27 March 2006 the forensic medical expert issued a report noting that the applicant had sustained a bruise measuring 3 cm by 1.5 cm on the right side of his lower jaw. The report specified that the injury was minor, could have been caused on 24 March 2006, and had been inflicted by a blunt object. 12. On 15 May 2006 the Police Department refused to open a criminal investigation against T., noting that the applicant’s injury was minor and that he could institute private prosecution proceedings against T. 13. On 19 May 2006 the Suvorivskyy District Prosecutor’s Office of Kherson (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) quashed that decision and instituted criminal proceedings against T. under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code (“disorderly conduct”). The case was referred to the Police Department for pre-trial investigation. 14. On 9 June 2006 a forensic medical expert issued a report stating that the applicant had suffered bruising on his face, which had been caused by a blunt object. The expert considered that the injury was minor and that it could have been inflicted on 24 May 2006 as described by the applicant. 15. On 22 July 2006 another forensic medical expert report was issued. It stated that there had been no exacerbation of the applicant’s chronic illnesses after the incident of 24 March 2006. 16. Following his complaints that his epileptic attacks had increased, the applicant underwent neurological treatment in the local hospital between 24 July and 3 August 2006. During that period the applicant had one epileptic attack. Between 25 January and 3 February 2007 the applicant underwent another course of neurological treatment. During that time he had two epileptic attacks. Between 19 and 31 December 2007 the applicant was admitted to hospital again for neurological treatment and in that period he had no epileptic attacks. 17. On 24 July and 19 August 2006, 22 January and 11 April 2007 the Police Department closed the criminal investigation for lack of evidence that T. had committed the crime provided for under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code. All those decisions were quashed by the supervising prosecutors as unfounded and further criminal investigations were ordered. 18. On 9 July 2007 the Police Department closed the investigation once again for essentially the same reasons. 19. On 14 November 2007 the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed that decision and ordered a further investigation. On the same date it opened a criminal investigation under Article 125 § 1 of the Criminal Code for infliction of minor bodily injuries to the applicant. 20. On 6 December 2007 the Police Department terminated the investigation under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code, noting that T.’s actions had not amounted to the crime of disorderly conduct. 21. On 17 March 2008 the investigation in respect of the crime provided for under Article 125 § 1 of the Criminal Code was completed and the case was referred to the Suvorivskyy District Court of Kherson (“the District Court”) for trial. 22. On 3 April 2008 the District Court terminated the proceedings against T. as time-barred. The applicant appealed, claiming in particular that T. should have been charged with a more serious crime. 23. On 27 May 2008 the Kherson Region Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 3 April 2008. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. 24. On 1 December 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. 25. On 12 February 2009 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against T., seeking damages in connection with the incident of 24 March 2006. 26. The District Court ordered a forensic medical examination in the case. 27. On 14 September 2009 the forensic medical expert concluded that the facial bruise identified on the applicant on 24 March 2006 had not caused any deterioration in his health and that the applicant’s brain had not been affected by that injury. 28. On 16 October 2009 the District Court awarded the applicant 2,000 Ukrainian hryvnias in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of T.’s unlawful behaviour on 24 March 2006. The decision became final but has not been fully enforced. 29. At about 11.30 a.m. on 18 April 2008 the applicant was walking in a street near his home. Allegedly, he was attacked suddenly by a man wielding a knife; the applicant tried to defend himself but received a hard blow to the head and his head was cut, probably with the knife. 30. On the same day the applicant complained to the Police Department. When questioned by a police officer, the applicant replied that the assailant had hit him in the head with an object. 31. Again on the same day the applicant was medically examined and diagnosed with concussion and soft-tissue bruising of the head. He was admitted to hospital and received inpatient treatment between 18 and 29 April 2008. 32. On 25 April 2008 the Police Department refused to institute criminal proceedings because, despite the measures taken by the police, the assailant could not be identified. Furthermore, the gravity of the applicant’s injuries could not be established as no report had been issued following his medical examination. 33. On 8 May 2008 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Police Department, claiming that the assailant had been wielding a small knife. 34. On 28 August 2008 the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 25 April 2008 and ordered further pre-investigating enquiries. The supervising prosecutor specified that it was necessary to question the applicant in more detail, to carry out his medical examination, and to identify and question possible witnesses of the incident and the doctors who had treated him. 35. On 13 September 2008 the applicant was questioned by the police again. He stated that the assailant had been wielding a metallic object. On the same day the Police Department decided not to institute criminal proceedings because, despite the measures undertaken, there was no information leading to identification of the assailant; furthermore, the gravity of the applicant’s injuries could not be established, as no report had been issued following his medical examination. 36. On 29 September 2008 a forensic medical expert completed the examination of the applicant and concluded that the concussion and the bruise on his head had been caused by blunt objects; those injuries were minor and might have been sustained on 18 April 2008. 37. On 8 October 2008 the District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 13 September 2008 and ordered further enquiries to be carried out by the Police Department. 38. On 10 October 2008 the Police Department refused to institute criminal proceedings, noting that the assailant had not been identified and that the applicant’s injuries were minor. 39. On 13 October 2008 the District Prosecutor’s Office quashed that decision and ordered that the applicant’s doctor and the forensic medical expert be further questioned, and that information on the applicant’s mental state be obtained. 40. On 21 October 2008 the Police Department, having taken further measures, again refused to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds that the assailant had not been identified and the applicant had sustained only minor injuries. The decision also referred to the doctor’s statement that the bruise on the applicant’s head measured 6 cm by 7 cm. 41. On 13 November 2008 the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed that decision, considering that it had not been properly reasoned and substantiated. 42. Following that decision, the police identified individuals who had been selling sunglasses and citrus fruits near the scene of the incident on 18 April 2008. When questioned, the stall-holders stated that they had not noticed any incidents near their place of work on that day. 43. On 1 December 2008 the Police Department, relying on the collected material, decided not to institute criminal proceedings, once again stating that, despite the measures undertaken, the assailant could not be identified and the injuries were minor. 44. In the morning of 20 September 2010 the applicant entered the premises of the District Court to get a copy of a court decision in his case. When it was his turn in the queue, the applicant produced his pension certificate and demanded a copy of the decision. The officer of the court’s registry refused to give him the document and started to argue with the applicant in the presence of the other visitors. As the argument continued, the officer asked two court security guards for help. The security guards approached the applicant and demanded that he leave the court premises. The applicant refused. The security guards then twisted his hands behind his back, handcuffed him and dragged him out of the hall, punching him in the head and kicking him in the legs. The applicant lost consciousness. When he came to, police officers were also present. People observing the incident called an ambulance. About twenty minutes later, the ambulance arrived and the handcuffs were removed. One of the visitors, Ms G., approached the applicant and gave him her contact details in case he needed her witness statement. 45. Outside the court, the applicant was placed in the ambulance. The doctors and the police officers discussed for a while whether the applicant should go to hospital or to the police station. When the applicant attempted to interfere in the discussion the police officers pushed him to the ground, and stepped on his arms in order to prevent him from getting up. Eventually, the applicant was taken to hospital. 46. In the morning of 20 September 2010 the applicant entered the premises of the District Court to get a copy of a court decision in his case. A conflict between him and the officer of the court’s registry arose, since the applicant refused to show his ID document at the desk. The applicant behaved inappropriately, uttering obscenities and ignoring the officer’s remarks. The officer therefore asked two court security guards (belonging to the special police department ensuring legal order on the court premises) for help. They approached the applicant, introduced themselves and asked him not to breach public order. The applicant continued to utter obscenities, however. In a while two police officers arrived. They introduced themselves, demanded that the applicant stop his unlawful behaviour and warned him about the possible use of force and special means of restraint. The applicant disregarded the police officers’ lawful demands and was therefore handcuffed. When he was forcefully dragged towards the exit of the court premises, the applicant lost consciousness and fell on the floor. The handcuffs were then removed and he was provided with first aid; an ambulance was called. 47. When the ambulance arrived, the applicant was taken outside the court premises and provided with further first aid. No force was used against the applicant at that time. However, each time the police officers approached the applicant, he fell down on the ground and hit his body against the ambulance in an attempt to injure himself. The applicant was therefore given a sedative injection and taken by ambulance to hospital. 48. On the same day the applicant was admitted to hospital for inpatient medical treatment. He was released from hospital on 28 September 2009. 49. On 20 October 2010 a forensic medical expert issued a report stating that the applicant had sustained a bruise measuring 9.8 cm by 3.8 cm on his right arm; a bruise measuring 5.8 cm by 3.9 cm on his left forearm; and a bruise measuring 6.2 cm by 4.3 cm on his right forearm. There was a swelling measuring 2.4 cm in diameter in the parietal and occipital regions of the head, and the applicant had suffered from concussion and cerebral haemorrhage. The expert opined that those injuries had been caused by blunt objects; as to the date, they had probably been inflicted on 20 September 2010. The injuries were classified as minor. 50. On 11 October 2010 the police drew up a report stating that on 20 September 2010 the applicant had breached public order on the court premises, which amounted to an administrative offence. 51. On 25 October 2010 the applicant complained to the District Prosecutor’s Office of ill-treatment by the court security guards and police officers. 52. On 14 November 2010 the Kherson Regional Police completed their internal inquiry and found that the applicant had sustained injuries in the course of the incident; however, as the evidence collected was contradictory any further decisions concerning the incident would have to be taken by the District Prosecutor’s Office. The internal inquiry report stressed that the statements of the applicant and Ms G. contradicted those of the officers of the court’s registry, the court security guards and the police officers. 53. On 12 January 2011 the District Court closed as time-barred the administrative case against the applicant for the alleged violation of public order on the court premises. 54. On 7 April 2011 a forensic medical expert reported that the injuries identified on the applicant could have been sustained in the manner described by the applicant in his account of the incident. 55. On 14 November 2011 the investigator questioned the forensic medical expert who noted that the concussion and the injuries to the applicant’s head could also have been sustained when the applicant, allegedly, hit his head against the ambulance. 56. In the meantime, on 6 December 2010, 11 April, 3 October and 14 November 2011 the District Prosecutor’s Office, basing its decisions on the pre-investigating enquiries conducted in the relevant periods, refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment for lack of corpus delicti in the behaviour of the court security guards and the police officers. The District Prosecutor’s Office concluded that during the incident the applicant had failed to obey the lawful orders of the police officers and that he had been lawfully handcuffed; as to the injuries, the applicant could have sustained them when he fell on the floor on the court premises and later when he was hitting his head against the ambulance. 57. The above decisions were reversed by the supervising prosecutors as unsubstantiated and further pre-investigating enquiries were ordered. In particular, on 28 November 2011 the General Prosecutor’s Office reversed the decision of 14 November 2011, noting that neither the applicant’s version of the incident nor the police officers’ version had been thoroughly scrutinised. The General Prosecutor’s Office emphasised that the events on the premises of the court had been observed by a number of visitors. However, despite their importance, the investigator had failed to take sufficient steps to identify possible witnesses. Furthermore, even the identified witness, Ms G., had not been questioned by the prosecutor’s office investigator. As to the events that occurred outside the court, the version that the applicant had intentionally hit his head against the ambulance had not been properly substantiated. 58. On 13 December 2011 the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office telephoned Ms G. to invite her for questioning. Ms G. declined, stating that she did not wish to communicate with the officer of the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office concerned; she then said that she was outside Kherson and would be back on 17 December 2011. 59. On the same day, 13 December 2011, the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment for lack of corpus delicti. The decision was based on the medical evidence, and on the statements of the court registry officers, the court security guards, the police officers, the ambulance driver, the ambulance doctor and his medical assistant, as well as the forensic medical expert. As regards Ms G., she could not be questioned as she had been unavailable. According to that decision, the applicant had behaved inappropriately on the premises of the court. He had breached public order and failed to obey the lawful orders of police officers. The court security guards had therefore handcuffed him and tried to escort him out of the court. When the applicant had lost consciousness (or pretended to have lost consciousness) and had fallen on the floor, the handcuffs had been removed and he had been provided with first aid. The decision further referred to the statements of the ambulance team and one of the police officers, specifying that outside the court premises the applicant had been in an agitated state, falling on the ground and hitting his head against the ambulance. The decision also referred to the forensic medical expert’s report describing the applicant’s injuries; it cited the expert’s opinion that the applicant’s head injuries could have been caused when he had allegedly been hitting his head against the ambulance. 60. On 19 December 2011 an officer of the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office questioned Ms G. The latter stated that during the conflict the officer of the court registry had behaved defiantly, while the applicant had remained calm; the security guards had handcuffed the applicant and dragged him towards the exit kicking him in the legs and, when the applicant had fallen on the floor they had continued to kick him in other parts of the body. Ms G. had continued to observe the scene outside the court premises and noted that the police officers had been kicking the applicant while he had been lying on the ground. She emphasised that she had not noticed the applicant hitting his head against the ambulance or a police car. 61. On 4 January 2012 the Kherson Region Prosecutor’s Office considered another complaint from the applicant and confirmed that its earlier decision of 13 December 2011 concerning the incident had been lawful and substantiated. It specified that Ms G.’s statements were not supported by the materials of the enquiries.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

3. The applicants’ personal details are provided in the appendix below. 4. On 15 March 1982 the first, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants initiated civil proceedings for determination of title to plots of land, together with Mr Mite Ristov, Mr Dinko Ristov. Upon the death of Mr Mite Ristov, the domestic proceedings on his behalf were pursued by his heirs, from the second to fifth applicants. Upon the death of Mr Dinko Ristov the domestic proceedings were pursued on his behalf by his heirs, from the sixth to eighth applicants. 5. On 21 July 2004, namely before the application was introduced, the ninth applicant had died. With a letter of 3 September 2007 the applicants’ representative informed the Court about the ninth applicant’s death and that the application would be pursued on his behalf by his heir Mr Taško Šterjov (the name of this heir is the same with the name of the third applicant). 6. On 21 December 2004 the first applicant died and the application was pursued on his behalf by his heirs Mr Taško Mihajlov, Mr Saltir Mihajlovski and Mr Stojan Mihajlov. 7. The proceedings ended on 7 March 2008 when the legal representative was served with a judgment of the Štip Court of Appeal of 28 January 2008 which listed the following plaintiffs: the heirs of the first applicant (see paragraph 6 above), the second to eighth applicants, the heir of the ninth applicant (see paragraph 5 above) and the tenth to twelfth applicants. The appeal on the points of law lodged against this judgment was rejected by the Supreme Court (отфрла) as ratione valoris.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicants’ personal details are listed in the appendix below. 5. On 16 March 1982 five people (“the predecessors”), the ninth and the twenty-second applicants initiated civil proceedings for determination of title to plots of land. 6. Between 1984 and 2001 the predecessors died. The first, second, third and fourth applicants stepped in the proceedings on behalf of their late predecessor. The fifth to eighth and the tenth to twenty-first applicants did not step in the proceedings on behalf of their late predecessors. 7. On 12 May 2004 the ninth applicant died. 8. On 23 April 2005 the twenty-second applicant died and his heirs, Mr Stojan Kostov and Mr Mite Kostov, applied to continue the application in his name. 9. On 17 April 2009 the fourth applicant died and her heirs, the second and third applicants, applied to continue the application also in her name. 10. The impugned proceedings, which were reconsidered on one occasion, ended on 31 August 2007 when the final decision of the Štip Court of Appeal was served on the applicants. This decision listed the following as plaintiffs: the first, second, third, fourth, ninth and twenty-second applicants as well as the predecessors of the remaining applicants.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1968 and lived in St Petersburg before the events of the case. 5. In 2004 several criminal cases were opened against the applicant on suspicion of kidnapping, extortion and planning an assassination. 6. By final judgments of 15 March 2007 and 8 October 2009, the Supreme Court of Russia found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a total of twenty-three years’ imprisonment. 7. Starting from 10 March 2004, the date of his arrest, the applicant was detained in various custodial facilities in connection with the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, on 15 January 2010 the applicant was transported from a prison hospital to remand prison IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg, where he stayed until 18 February 2010. According to the applicant, the facility was overcrowded. Thus, cell 456 measuring 8 sq. m accommodated up to three inmates. The applicant further claimed that he had been denied the necessary medical treatment there. In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted several photographs of his cell. 8. On 1 February 2010 Ms Klykova, the applicant’s representative at that time, lodged an application form complaining about the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Attached was a power of attorney, dated 12 January 2010 and signed by the applicant, which read as follows: “Power of Attorney [In accordance with] Rule 36 of the Rules of Court I, Mr Makovoz ... authorise Ms Klykova ... to represent me before the European Court of Human Rights ... in connection with my complaint against the Russian Federation, lodged under Article 34 of the Convention.” 9. In letter of 19 April 2010, Ms Klykova informed the Court that between 15 January and the end of February 2010 the applicant had been held in the St Petersburg remand prison and described the conditions of his detention there. She also submitted that she had lost contact with the applicant after he had left the prison on an unspecified date in late February 2010. 10. In letter of 26 October 2012, the applicant further complained about the conditions of his detention in various custodial facilities between 10 March 2004 and 22 December 2011.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Vinnytsya. 6. On 21 November 1995 the applicant was provided with a flat by the local authorities in the city of Vinnytsya. 7. On 1 December 1995 the applicant married S. and the couple lived in that flat. 8. On 22 December 1997 the applicant and S. had a son. 9. On 13 March 2001 the couple divorced, but neither of them would agree to vacate the flat. 10. According to the applicant, after the divorce his former wife repeatedly demanded that he sell the flat. As he refused to do so, he allegedly received threats from S., her relatives and certain police officers. Whenever disputes broke out between the former spouses living in the same flat, S. called the police to handle them. 11. In December 2005 the Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya considered an administrative case against the applicant following the submissions of the police concerning the domestic violence by the applicant. The court found the applicant guilty of violent behaviour in respect of his son and former spouse and imposed a fine on him. 12. At about 11 p.m. on 14 February 2006 three police officers arrived at the applicant’s flat after receiving a telephone call from S. complaining about the applicant. According to the Government, the call was made by the applicant’s neighbour; the applicant was shouting and threatening S. and the latter was crying that the applicant was threatening her with a knife. 13. According to the applicant, he refused to let the police officers in as they did not show their ID cards or present themselves, it was too late at night and the light in the corridor was turned off. The police tried to enter but failed to do so. At about 2 a.m. on 15 February 2006 two of S.’s brothers arrived and demanded that the applicant open the door. By that time, the light in the corridor was switched on and the applicant checked to see who was there by looking through the peephole in the door. As he saw only the two brothers without any police officers, he decided to open the door. Once he had unlocked the door, the brothers together with three police officers burst in and started to beat up the applicant. The applicant did not resist. When trying to handcuff the applicant the police officers twisted his arms and broke his right arm. They then took the applicant to the police station. They allegedly ill-treated him on his way to the police station and once there. 14. According to the Government, S.’s brothers arrived at the scene after receiving a call from S. At 2 a.m. on 15 February 2006 they managed to persuade the applicant to open the door. However, as soon as he did so, he saw the police officers in the corridor and made an attempt to close the door. S.’s brothers and the police officers pushed against the door and burst into the flat. Having been pushed away from the door, the applicant fell onto a chair and the floor. In order to arrest the applicant and take him to the district police station, the police officers decided to handcuff him. As the applicant was resisting his arrest, they had to apply force against him. In the course of handcuffing the applicant, his arm was unintentionally broken. 15. In the police station the applicant complained about his broken arm. An ambulance was therefore called and he was taken to the Vinnytsya City Hospital no. 2 (“the hospital”). 16. In the hospital the applicant was diagnosed with a fractured right humerus accompanied by displacement of bone fragments, neuritis of the radial nerve, crushed soft tissue, and bruises on both wrists and on his jaw. 17. On 16 February 2006 the applicant underwent an operation on his arm. He stayed in the hospital until 1 March 2006 for inpatient treatment. 18. On 15 February 2006 S. complained to the district police that the applicant had threatened to kill her and their son. 19. On the same day the police questioned S., her brothers, the applicant and the neighbours. They also inspected the scene of the events. 20. On 16 February 2006 a forensic medical examination of S. was carried out. The expert report stated that S. had a bruise on her right lower leg, which could have been caused by a blunt object on 14 February 2006. 21. On 23 February 2006 the police, having regard to S.’s refusal to maintain her complaint, refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant. 22. On 21 September 2006 the investigator instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with an offence under Article 129 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (threat to kill). According to the applicant, the criminal case was closed for lack of evidence. 23. On 21 February 2006 the applicant complained to the Zamostyanskyy District Prosecutor’s Office of Vinnytsya (“the district prosecutor’s office”) on account of his ill-treatment by the police and his former wife’s brothers. 24. On 14 March 2006 the assistant prosecutor at the district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill-treatment. Considering the facts of the incident, he noted that the applicant had been pushed backwards when the door had been forced open and had fallen onto a chair, hitting his right arm against the floor. He held that that might have been when the applicant had sustained the injuries. Having regard to those circumstances and the applicant’s behaviour during the conflict, the assistant prosecutor concluded that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. The decision was based on the reports of the police officers and the interviews of the applicant, S., her brothers and the neighbours. The assistant prosecutor also had regard to the city police’s internal inquiry report of 28 February 2006, which suggested that the police officers had acted lawfully. 25. On 28 March 2006 the district prosecutor quashed that decision as unfounded and ordered additional pre-investigating enquiries. He noted, in particular, that the medical examination of the applicant had not been completed and the role of S.’s brothers in the incident had not been properly examined. 26. On 3 April 2006 the district prosecutor’s office received an internal inquiry report of the Vinnytsya Regional Police Department suggesting that the applicant had sustained his injuries when falling onto a chair and the floor. 27. The medical examination of the applicant was completed on 26 April 2006. The experts noted in their report that, apart from a fractured right humerus, the applicant had sustained bruises on his right forearm, right shoulder, left leg and both wrists. 28. On 6 May 2006 the district prosecutor’s office, having carried out additional pre-investigating enquiries, refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill-treatment for the reason that there had been no elements of crime in the conduct of the police officers. The decision reproduced the same version of events as the one established earlier by the authorities, suggesting that the applicant had sustained his injuries when falling onto a chair and the floor. It specified that the applicant had a strong constitution and had offered resistance during the arrest. The police officers had therefore been assisted by S.’s brothers when restraining and handcuffing the applicant. 29. On 9 June 2006 the Vinnytsya Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed that decision and ordered further pre-investigating enquiries. It considered that it was necessary to examine the applicant’s personality, his behaviour before the quarrel with S., and whether he had been drunk at the time. Furthermore, the circumstances in which the applicant was injured and the role of each of the participants of the incident had to be scrutinised and an additional medical examination of the applicant carried out. 30. During the additional pre-investigating enquiries the authorities once again interviewed the applicant and S. They took statements from the ambulance paramedic as to the circumstances of the applicant’s hospitalisation. They inspected the scene of the incident, and enclosed a negative reference letter from the local house-maintenance authority in respect of the applicant. 31. On 26 June 2006 the juvenile department of the city council interviewed the applicant’s minor son in the presence of S., a school teacher and a school psychologist. By that time the son had undergone a psychological examination by the school psychologist, who had concluded, inter alia, that the son was scared of his father and did not include him in the family circle. During the interview at the juvenile department the applicant’s son claimed that his father had uttered obscenities and had threatened him and his mother; occasionally, his father would grab hold of him and shake him. He alleged that his father had taken a knife and had chased his mother around the flat; his father had also often threatened to throw his mother off the balcony. When asked about his attitude towards his father, the applicant’s son replied that he was scared of his father and wished to live just with his mother. 32. On 18 August 2006 the panel of experts concluded that the fracture of the applicant’s arm had resulted from a rotary application of force, when the arm had been turned about its axis. They noted that this corresponded to the applicant’s statement that his arms had been twisted behind his back. The experts added that the fracture could not have been caused by a direct application of force, including when the applicant, as alleged by the police officers, had fallen down as the door had been pushed open. 33. On 25 September 2006 the medical expert was interviewed as regards the possible origin of the applicant’s injuries. The expert opined that the bruises on the applicant’s wrists could have been caused by the handcuffs. He did not exclude the possibility that the other identified injuries, except for the fractured arm, might have resulted from the applicant’s fall and the impact with a chair and the floor. 34. On 26 September 2006 the district prosecutor’s office refused to open an investigation in connection with the alleged ill-treatment for the reason that there were no elements of crime in the conduct of the police officers. According to the decision, the applicant might have sustained the fractured arm when the police officers, assisted by S.’s brothers, were twisting his arms in order to handcuff him; the bruises on his wrists might have been caused by the handcuffs; the other bruises might have been caused by the applicant’s fall onto a chair and the floor when he was pushed backwards by the entrance door. The decision specified that the applicant had a strong constitution and had offered resistance during the arrest. 35. On 28 November 2006 the Staromiskyy District Court of Vinnytsya quashed the decision of 26 September 2006, holding that the pre-investigating enquiries were incomplete. The court ordered the authorities to take additional measures to scrutinise the circumstances of the incident, the role of each participant, the personality of the applicant and the situation in the family. 36. On 12 February 2007 the district prosecutor’s office, having conducted additional enquiries, refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill-treatment. The decision set out the facts in the following way. In the evening of 14 February 2006 the local police station received a telephone call reporting a domestic dispute at the applicant’s flat. At about 11 p.m. three police officers arrived at the flat but could not enter as the applicant refused to open the door. The police officers could hear a woman and a child crying for help. In particular, the woman was crying that the applicant was wielding a knife and threatening to kill her. The woman asked the applicant to open the door several times, but to no avail. The police officers attempted to negotiate with the applicant. Two neighbours stood nearby and observed the situation. At 2 a.m. on 15 February 2006 two of S.’s brothers arrived and asked the applicant to open the door, claiming that the police had left. When the applicant unlocked the door the police officers and the brothers burst into the flat, pushing the applicant backwards with the door, which he was trying to shut. The applicant fell onto a chair and the floor, and might have been injured. In the flat the police officers decided to handcuff the applicant and take him to the police station. As the applicant had a strong constitution and resisted the arrest, the police officers were assisted by S.’s brothers. They twisted the applicant’s arms behind his back and handcuffed him. Once the applicant had been taken to the police station, he started to complain of pain in his right arm. He was then taken to the hospital by ambulance for treatment. 37. Relying on those facts, the district prosecutor’s office found that the police officers and S.’s brothers had acted lawfully and had had no intention of injuring the applicant. Their intention had been to arrest him and stop his unlawful and dangerous conduct. The recourse to physical force had been lawful and necessary in the circumstances. The fractured arm might have been caused when the applicant resisted the twisting of his arms behind his back; the bruises on his wrists were probably caused by the handcuffs, and the other bruises might have resulted from the applicant’s fall onto a chair and the floor when he was pushed away from the door. The district prosecutor’s office concluded that in those circumstances there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers and S.’s two brothers. 38. On 23 March 2007 the Staromiskyy District Court of Vinnytsya upheld the decision of 12 February 2007, finding that the prosecutor’s office had taken all the necessary measures and examined the incident thoroughly, comprehensively and objectively. 39. On 17 May 2007 and 12 July 2008 the Vinnytsya Region Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the decision of the first-instance court of 23 March 2007.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1983 and lived in Nizhny Novgorod prior to the events of the case. 5. On 23 September 2005 the applicant was arrested on charges of robbery, theft, forgery and extortion. 6. On 11 April 2008 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence. 7. On 21 August 2008 the Presidium of the Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment 11 April 2008 and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh examination. Referring to the gravity of the charges, it also ordered the applicant’s detention to continue for a further three months. 8. By orders of 17 November 2008 and 16 February and 19 May 2009, the authorised period of the applicant’s detention was extended. These orders cited the gravity of the charges and the possibility of the applicant’s absconding as the main reasons for the continued detention. 9. On 24 November 2009 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of a number of grave crimes and sentenced him to a six years and one month’s imprisonment. 10. Between 24 September 2005 and 14 January 2009 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-52/1 of Nizhniy Novgorod. He submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1972 and lived in Bolshaya Kivara in the Republic of Udmurtiya before his arrest. 5. On 13 July 2005 the applicant was arrested and charged with murder. 6. On 18 April 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya, at final instance, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years and six months’ imprisonment. 7. During several periods between 13 July 2005 and 19 January 2007, for a total length of sixty-one day, the applicant was held in IVS Votkinsk, a temporary detention facility located in the Udmurtiya Republic. According to the applicant and the statements by his three cellmates, the conditions of detention in that facility were as follows. The applicant’s cell, located on the basement floor, was overcrowded: it measured 8 sq. m and accommodated up to five inmates. There were no individual beds, mattresses or bed linen. The detainees were afforded one meal per day. No outdoor exercise was available to them. 8. On 14 July 2005 the sanitary-epidemiological service inspected the detention facility. In their report, drafted on the same day, they noted that the IVS held sixty-three detainees which was nearly twice its design capacity, that there was no heating and restricted access to daylight. The general sanitary state of the facility was poor. The service recommended to the management of the facility to bring the conditions in line with the legal requirements. 9. It appears that the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention to various authorities. In his reply of 27 November 2006 the local prosecutor acknowledged some of his claims and informed the applicant that he had directed the management of the detention facility to upgrade the conditions. 10. On 23 October 2007 the Votkinsk Town Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya examined the applicant’s civil action in connection with inadequate conditions of detention. It found that a part of the allegations, in particular those concerning an overcrowding of the facility, a lack of bedding and poor sanitary conditions, were substantiated but rejected the claim. 11. On 19 June 2006 the applicant lodged his first letter to the Court, complaining about violations of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention in the criminal proceedings against him. 12. On 17 August 2006 the applicant despatched the completed application form. 13. In his letter of 3 April 2007 the applicant gave a detailed account of the conditions of his detention in IVS Votkinsk, alleging that they violated Article 3 of the Convention. 14. By letter of 23 May 2012, the Registry informed the applicant that his complaint had been more than ten pages long and, referring to the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Practice Direction on Institution of Proceedings, requested him to submit a summary application form listing the complaints which he wished to pursue. 15. Complying with the above request, on 6 August 2012 the applicant lodged the application form. It contained, in particular, the complaint about the conditions of his detention in IVS Votkinsk.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Bozoy, Irkutsk Region. 6. According to the applicant, and not contested by the Government, at approximately 11 p.m. on 5 April 2007 she was arrested on suspicion of abducting, raping and murdering S. According to the arrest record, she was arrested at 3.30 a.m. on 6 April 2007. 7. Following the arrest, the applicant was taken to a police station where she was questioned by an investigator in the presence of a lawyer. Prior to the questioning, she wrote a statement admitting to S.’s abduction. According to her, police officers threatened to beat her if she refused to make a written statement. She did not explain whether she had been denied access to a lawyer prior to writing the statement. 8. According to the applicant, on the morning of 6 April 2007 she was taken to the town prosecutor’s office. She was taken to an office where policemen started beating her and urging her to confess to S.’s murder. They hit her on the head and threatened to rape her, and then handcuffed her and pushed her to the floor. They put a hat on her head and pulled it down over her eyes. They also threw a coat over her. They punched her in the solar plexus and the stomach, and pulled her by the legs. They attached a wire to her right leg and placed a metal object between her shoulders, then subjected her to electrocution while gagging her mouth to muffle her screams. 9. On the same day the applicant was questioned by the investigator and confessed to S.’s abduction. She was later taken to the location where she had last seen S. alive and was questioned again afterwards. The applicant’s lawyer was present during the questioning. 10. Later that day the applicant was taken to a temporary detention centre, where an officer conducted a medical examination and noted numerous bruises on her belly and scratches below the right clavicle. It appears that the administration of the detention facility informed the investigator from the town prosecutor’s office accordingly, who ordered that the applicant undergo a forensic medical examination. 11. At approximately 5 or 6 p.m. that evening the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination which, in addition to the injuries noted before, revealed two bruised areas on her chest, possibly caused by blunt solid objects one to two days before the examination. At the time, the applicant did not offer any explanation as to the cause of the injuries. 12. On 13 April 2007 the investigator questioned the applicant again the in the presence of her lawyer. She denied having any intent to kill S. According to her, it was two other co-defendants who had decided to do so. 13. On 10 May 2007 a local newspaper published an article about S.’s murder and the opening of the investigation. The names of the alleged perpetrators were not disclosed. 14. On 28 June 2007 the town prosecutor’s office received a complaint from the applicant alleging that she had been ill-treated. 15. On 10 March 2008 investigator T. from the town prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s and her co‑defendants’ allegations of ill-treatment in police custody. The investigator noted as follows: “In the course of the investigation, [the applicant and three other defendants] alleged that their initial statements had been coerced by police officers and the prosecutor’s office and were false. In addition, the medical examination conducted revealed that they had sustained injuries. However, in the course of the investigation ... the [defendants’] statements were obtained in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure. The [defendants’] allegations should be considered with criticism. They are charged with serious offences. They have not pleaded guilty and wish to evade criminal liability. Accordingly, no objective information has been found that would confirm the defendants’ allegations that they sustained injuries while in [custody].” 16. It appears that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody were subject to additional pre-investigative inquiry. On 10 September 2008 investigator M. from the regional prosecutor’s office refused to open criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators. He took into account the fact that the applicant had been convicted as charged (see paragraph 22 below). He further relied on statements made by the police officers involved in the applicant’s arrest and questioning, who denied having beaten or tortured her. He summarised his findings as follows: “The analysis of the collected material shows that the [applicant’s] allegations of ill‑treatment are not confirmed by objective information and are refuted by the explanations provided by the police officers and investigators from the town prosecutor’s office. [The applicant] complained of ill-treatment after a considerable length of time, and only when she was charged with serious offences, even though nothing had precluded her from communicating her complaint to the investigator who had questioned her in the presence of a lawyer or during the inspection of the crime scene or subsequent questionings, etc. Furthermore, when admitted to the temporary detention facility, [the applicant] did not complain of her injuries allegedly inflicted by police officers. In the absence of a forensic medical examination, it is impossible to determine that [the applicant] sustained the injuries, the degree of their severity, the time of their infliction, or their cause. Regard being had to the above, it should be concluded that the [applicant’s] allegations of ill-treatment should be considered with criticism and viewed as an attempt by [the applicant] to avoid criminal liability for the serious crimes committed. Such a conclusion is substantiated by the [applicant’s] conviction by the Irkutsk Regional Court ... [Her] allegations of ill-treatment were subject to verification by the court, which ruled [that there was] no case to answer against the police officers and investigators from the prosecutor’s office, who had not abused their powers or infringed the [applicant’s] rights in contravention of the law.” 17. On 18 June 2009 investigator T. refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had allegedly subjected the defendants to ill-treatment following their arrest. The parties did not provide a copy of this decision. 18. On 26 October 2009 the Irkutsk Regional Court, within the framework of the trial, issued a separate ruling concerning the applicant’s and other defendants’ allegations of ill-treatment in police custody, advising the regional prosecutor that an additional inquiry should be conducted. In the ruling, the court considered that the inquiry conducted in response to the defendants’ complaints had been incomplete. In particular, the court stated as follows: “In the course of the trial, each of the defendants alleged that they had been subjected to physical and psychological pressure by law-enforcement officers ... who demanded that they confess to [the crimes] ... As it transpires from the material in the case file, during the preliminary investigation in the present case each of the defendants lodged complaints with the [town] and [regional] prosecutors’ offices alleging an abuse of power and the use of force by law-enforcement officers ... Following the inquiry in response to the [applicant’s] complaint, on 10 September 2008 [senior investigator M. from the investigating committee of the regional prosecutor’s office] refused to institute criminal proceedings on [the grounds that] no offence had been committed. ... The court cannot subscribe to [M.’s] finding that it was impossible to establish objectively that [the applicant] had bodily injuries because [allegedly] she had not undergone a forensic medical examination ... [T]he material in the case file ... contains information showing that all the defendants had sustained bodily injuries ... For instance, witness Sh., who saw [the applicant] immediately prior to [her] arrest ... and witness Shin., [one of the police officers] who had taken [the applicant] to [the police station] on the night of 6 April 2007 testified that [she] did not have any visible injuries and ... did not complain about her health to Sh. ... The records on the initial examination and registration of provision of medical aid to detainees admitted to [the temporary detention centre] ... contain the following entries ... On 6 April 2007 [the applicant] had bruises on her body ... On 7 April 2007 [she] had bruises on the abdomen and scratches on the right clavicle. The findings of the forensic medical experts are as follows ... [The applicant] had bruises on the abdomen and two areas of subcutaneous haemorrhage on the right side of the chest which were caused by the impact of blunt solid objects approximately one to two days ago and could not cause damage to her health. The origin of the injuries was not indicated. [The applicant] did not inform the forensic medical expert as to the origin of the bodily injuries. In 2008, when conducting an inquiry in response to the [applicant’s] complaint, investigator M. did not examine the findings of the forensic medical expert ... at all. ... Regard being had to the above, the court considers that ... investigator M. ... did not conduct a comprehensive and objective inquiry in response to the [applicant’s] allegations of [ill-treatment]. The investigator’s decision ... does not contain an answer as to how and when [the applicant] sustained bodily injuries. In accordance with the [statutory] rules of criminal [procedure], no party to the proceedings can be subjected to abuse, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment. Accordingly, the court draws the prosecutor’s attention to the fact that a comprehensive and thorough examination is necessary in order to verify the defendants’ allegations of ill-treatment.” 19. On 26 November 2009 the investigating committee of the regional prosecutor’s office informed the Irkutsk Regional Court, in response to the decision of 26 October 2009 (see paragraph 18 above), that investigators M. and T. had been subjected to a disciplinary warning and reprimand respectively for failing to properly discharge their duties. According to the first deputy head of the investigating committee, the decision of 18 June 2009 had been reversed and the committee had conducted an additional pre‑investigative inquiry into the defendants’ allegations of ill-treatment. The Government did not submit a copy of this decision or state whether its content had been communicated to the applicant. 20. According to the Government, on 6 December 2009 the investigating committee refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations. The Government did not submit a copy of this decision or state whether its content had been communicated to the applicant. 21. On an unspecified date the investigation against the applicant and the three other co-accused was completed and the case was transferred to the Irkutsk Regional Court for trial. 22. On 29 August 2008 the court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to twenty years’ imprisonment. 23. On 31 March 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The court noted that the trial court had failed to ensure the defendants’ right to an adequate defence and had held hearings in the absence of defence counsel. 24. During the new trial, the applicant admitted that she had participated in S.’s abduction and battery but denied any involvement in organising S.’s rape and murder. She further claimed that she had been subjected to ill‑treatment while in police custody and forced to confess. 25. In response to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by police officers, the trial court questioned forensic expert R., who had examined the applicant on 6 April 2007. R. confirmed his earlier findings and stated that the applicant might have sustained the injuries at least twenty hours prior to the examination. He also considered it impossible, given the nature of the applicant’s injuries, that she had been subjected to electrocution. 26. On 26 October 2009 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to sixteen years’ imprisonment. The court relied, inter alia, on her statements of 6 and 13 April 2007. As regards the written statement made prior to her first questioning by the investigator (see paragraph 7 above), the court considered it admissible in so far as she had informed the investigator about S.’s abduction. The court also considered admissible the record of the applicant’s questioning by the investigator. In this connection, it noted that prior to the questioning the applicant had been advised of her rights, and had been assisted by a lawyer throughout. The applicant appealed. 27. On 17 March 2010 the Supreme Court reclassified the charges against the applicant to bring them in line with amendments to the Russian Criminal Code and reduced her sentence by two years. The court also upheld on appeal the Regional Court’s findings concerning the inadequacy of the inquiry in response to the defendants’ allegations of ill-treatment.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Sundborn. 6. On 8 September 2009 the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogdemyndigheten) in Falun issued a writ of execution (beslut om utmätning) attaching a mobile sawmill belonging to the applicant. It noted that the applicant’s total enforceable tax debts amounted to SEK 246,199 (roughly EUR 27,300) and that the sawmill had an estimated value of SEK 300,000 (roughly EUR 33,400). The Authority decided to leave the sawmill in the applicant’s possession but informed him that he was not allowed to sell or dispose of it or otherwise make use of it in a way that might negatively affect its value. 7. The applicant appealed against the decision to the District Court (tingsrätten) of Falun and also requested the Enforcement Authority to stay the sale of the sawmill while the court considered the case. The request for the interim measure was granted on 29 September 2009. 8. On 1 February 2010 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the writ of execution. The interim measure was consequently also lifted. 9. Upon further appeal by the applicant, both the Svea Court of Appeal (hovrätten) and the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal, the latter on 6 May 2010. 10. On 22 April 2010 the Enforcement Authority contacted the applicant in order to plan the sale of the attached sawmill. In his reply a few days later, the applicant stated that he had removed the sawmill from his property and hidden it. He also submitted a written statement specifying that he had removed and hidden the sawmill, alone when no one else was at home. 11. On 5 May 2010 the Enforcement Authority visited the applicant’s property and confirmed that the sawmill was no longer there. The Authority also handed the applicant a summons for questioning on 7 May 2010 on its premises, as well as an injunction in which he was ordered to provide the Authority with the necessary information to be able to recuperate the sawmill. The injunction also informed the applicant that, according to Chapter 4, section 14, of the Enforcement Code (Utsökningsbalken), he was duty-bound to give information about his assets and their location. It further informed him of the Authority’s intention to ask the District Court to detain him if he did not cooperate. 12. At the questioning, the applicant acknowledged that he knew that the sawmill was attached and that he was not allowed to dispose of it in any way. However, since he considered that the basis for the attachment was wrong, he had decided to hide it. He stated that he took full responsibility for his actions and that nobody but him had been involved or knew where the sawmill was. He refused to give any information about its whereabouts but admitted that he had driven some distance with it around mid-April 2010. He further claimed that it could be only partly in his possession and that he was not sure that he could retrieve it if he wanted to. He stated that he had even considered setting fire to the sawmill. Meanwhile, the applicant’s wife was also questioned. She informed the Enforcement Authority that she had no information about where the sawmill was hidden. 13. On 17 May 2010 the Enforcement Authority requested the District Court to detain the applicant because he had refused to cooperate and give the required information. It relied on Chapter 2, section 16, and Chapter 4, section 14, of the Enforcement Code. On the same day, the District Court assigned a public defender for the applicant. 14. The applicant opposed the measure and claimed that it would be in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention to detain him and that no extraordinary reasons for such a measure existed. 15. On 27 May 2010, after having held an oral hearing, the District Court rejected the Enforcement Authority’s request. It first considered that Swedish legislation on this point did not contravene the said provisions in the Convention. The question was whether there were extraordinary reasons to detain the applicant. In this respect, the court noted that the writ of execution had gained legal force on 6 May 2010 when the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. Thus, the court held, only a short time had passed since the matter had been finally resolved. It further observed that the Enforcement Authority had not resorted to any other measures in order to convince the applicant to reveal the location of the property, such as imposing a conditional fine. Whilst recognising that the applicant so far had been reluctant to give any information about the location of the sawmill, the court found that it could not be ruled out that a less severe coercive measure would alter his attitude. Consequently, the court concluded that currently there did not exist such extraordinary reasons to detain the applicant. 16. The Enforcement Authority appealed to the Court of Appeal, maintaining its claims and adding that, according to the preparatory works of the Enforcement Code, it was only necessary that the debtor had received an injunction but refused to comply with it. It further submitted that having regard to the applicant’s stance on the matter, the imposition of a conditional fine would most likely have no effect. Lastly, the Authority stated that it had reported the applicant to the police on the ground that he had committed a breach of an official order when he had removed and hidden the sawmill. 17. The applicant opposed the appeal, maintaining his claims and adding that he considered that, if he were detained, it would amount to imprisonment to obtain a confession. In his view, it would be clearly disproportionate to the aim pursued to detain him. 18. On 28 June 2010 the Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s decision and granted the Enforcement Authority’s request. It stated that a debtor had to give necessary information about his assets and failure to do so could result in the debtor being detained, if there were extraordinary reasons for detention. Moreover, it was not necessary to impose a fine initially. Having regard to the size of the debts, the value of the hidden property and the fact that the applicant had maintained his refusal to reveal its location, the Court of Appeal found that there were extraordinary reasons to detain the applicant and that detention was proportionate to the aim pursued. In reaching its decision, the court found that the measure did not breach the Convention. Lastly, it noted that it should be informed as soon as the applicant had been detained in order to hold a hearing as to the continued detention. 19. The applicant was detained the following day. Consequently, on 30 June 2010, the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing and decided to maintain its earlier decision. At the hearing, the applicant stated that the taxes and the attachment had been imposed on him wrongly and that as long as these errors had not been corrected he would not cooperate to bring back the sawmill. The court reiterated its reasons as stated in its earlier decision and added that the applicant’s detention should be reviewed every second week and that he should be released immediately if he revealed the location of the property. Moreover, under no circumstances could the applicant be kept in detention for more than three months. 20. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court which, on 6 July 2010, refused leave to appeal. 21. On 13 July 2010 the District Court reviewed the applicant’s detention and held a new hearing in the case as required by Chapter 2, section 16, of the Enforcement Code. The Enforcement Authority maintained that the applicant should be kept in detention since he still had not given any information about the location of the sawmill. It stated that it had not been able to undertake any investigative measures, since the applicant had stated that he had taken the sawmill far away from his property by car and its whereabouts thus were unknown to the Authority. The applicant, who requested his immediate release, maintained his refusal to give any information about the location of the sawmill and claimed, inter alia, that he suffered from high blood pressure and panic anxiety attacks, causing him difficulties sleeping. Moreover, he stated that he had recently been treated for prostate cancer and that he was not allowed to take his normal medication against his panic attacks since it contained narcotic substances. In its decision, the District Court noted that the applicant maintained his refusal to reveal the whereabouts of the sawmill and found, having regard to the proportionality of the measure, that there were extraordinary reasons for the applicant’s continued detention. Hence, the District Court decided that he should remain in custody. 22. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal which, on 20 July 2010, rejected the appeal. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal since a new decision had already been taken by the District Court at that time. 23. On 27 July 2010 the District Court again reviewed the detention and held a new hearing in the case. The Enforcement Authority maintained its earlier point of view and acknowledged that no investigative measure had been possible due to the applicant’s continued refusal to cooperate. The applicant maintained his earlier position and added that he suffered from asthmatic symptoms due to the dry air in custody. Having regard to his age and health problems, he considered that it was clearly disproportionate to prolong his detention. The District Court found that there were still extraordinary reasons for the applicant’s continued detention and that it was not disproportionate to the aim pursued. It thus ordered that he should remain in custody. 24. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal which, on 2 August 2010, rejected the appeal. On 5 August 2010 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. 25. On 9 August 2010 the District Court once again reviewed the detention and held a hearing in the case. The parties maintained their earlier standpoints. The District Court found that continued detention of the applicant would be disproportionate to the measures he had taken. Hence, the District Court concluded that there were no extraordinary reasons for the applicant’s continued detention. As a consequence, the District Court ordered his immediate release and the order was implemented the same day. 26. The Enforcement Authority appealed to the Court of Appeal which, on 13 August 2010, rejected the appeal. 27. On 7 September 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the Enforcement Authority’s further appeal and consequently, on 23 September 2010, the District Court struck the case out of its list of cases as the case was closed. 28. As concerns the Enforcement Authority’s police report concerning the applicant’s alleged breach of an official order pursuant to Chapter 17, section 13, of the Penal Code (Brottsbalken), the preliminary investigation was discontinued with reference to provisions on waiver of prosecution (åtalsunderlåtelse) on 13 April 2011. 29. On 4 October 2011 the Enforcement Authority decided to revoke the writ of execution concerning the sawmill since it considered that no additional circumstances had emerged that could reveal its location. Furthermore, it was considered that there were no other measures which could produce results to that end. 30. On 26 April 2012 the applicant submitted a claim for damages to the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern), pursuant to the Act on Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty and Other Coercive Measures (Lagen om ersättning vid frihetsberövande och andra tvångsåtgärder, 1998:714), in the amount of SEK 80,000 for the suffering he had endured during the 42 days he was deprived of his liberty. He further demanded to be reimbursed SEK 2,940 for costs which had been deducted from his pension during his time in detention. 31. On 15 October 2012 the Chancellor of Justice rejected the claim. The Chancellor noted that the decision to detain the applicant had been taken by a court of law, in accordance with relevant legal provisions. Moreover, the examination of the case showed no basis for finding that the decision had been taken on erroneous grounds and therefore was incorrect.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. On 25 June 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft of documents and death threat and later charged with several counts of murder and robbery. While in police custody, he was allegedly subjected to beatings. 5. On 9 July 2004 the applicant was placed in remand prison IZ-27/1 in Khabarovsk. 6. After an initial period of detention in ordinary cells of the prison, on 18 July 2005 the applicant was transferred to a special section designed for detention of persons sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant stayed in several cells of that section until his departure to a correctional colony on 19 December 2007. 7. The parties disagreed on many aspects of the material conditions of the applicant’s detention during that period. 8. In the Government’s submission, the applicant was accommodated in four cells: 9. All cells measured 8.1 sq. m and had 2 sleeping places. The applicant stayed in them either alone or with another detainee, but the design capacity was never exceeded. 10. Each cell had a window covered by metal bars which allowed sufficient access to natural light and fresh air. Two light bulbs, one for daytime and another for night-time lighting were installed in the cells. Running water was available at all times. Toilet pans were located at between 1 and 1.3 m from beds and dining tables and separated from the rest of the cells by a 1.5 meter-high brick partition. The applicant was allowed daily hour-long outdoor exercise. He could take a shower and wash his clothing once a week. 11. In support of their position, the Government produced a number of certificates and statements issued by the director of remand prison IZ-27/1 on 7 July 2010 showing the numbers of the cells where the applicant stayed, the frequency of outdoor exercise and visits to the shower, as well as descriptions of the cells, their equipment and sanitary installations. The certificates were accompanied by copies of the applicant’s cell record, the prison population register and the schedules of outdoor exercise and sanitary measures covering the entire period of the applicant’s detention. 12. Further to the Court’s request, the Government submitted a floor plan of the facility, containing indications of the cell surface. 13. The applicant disputed the Government’s submissions concerning the cells. He provided the following information in that regard: 14. According to the applicant, the cells presented the following characteristics: The applicant did not provide any information about the number of sleeping places in the cells. 15. All cells were located in the semi-basement of the remand prison. They were poorly lit and ventilated. Metal shutters on the windows blocked access to natural light and fresh air. Heating did not function. Drinking water was available only on request from the prison guards. The toilet pan was not separated from the living area. The courtyard for outdoor exercise was very small. 16. To corroborate his claims, the applicant submitted statements by two detainees from the adjacent cells who also stated that the applicant had been ill-treated by prison guards. 17. On 25 July 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 18. On 30 May 2006 the applicant’s mother complained to the regional prison authority about the conditions of his detention. In response to the complaint, on 27 June 2006 the authority admitted that the cell where the applicant was held had to be repaired and directed the management of the prison to transfer the applicant to another cell. 19. On 2 August 2006 the applicant complained to the regional prosecutor about the conditions of his detention. He claimed, in particular, that there were metal shutters on windows, that the toilet pan was not separated from the rest of the cell and that the heating was too weak. Following an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations, on 19 August 2006 the district prosecutor concluded that “the [remand prison] cells [were being] renovated and properly maintained” and refused to open a criminal investigation into the matter. The applicant complained to a court. 20. On 18 September 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court of Khabarovsk dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the prosecutor’s decision of 19 August 2006. The applicant appealed against the decision of 18 September 2006, but provided no further information about the outcome of these proceedings. 21. On 9 October 2006 the applicant’s mother lodged another complaint with the regional prison authority, claiming, in particular, that the conditions of his detention had not improved. On 13 November 2006 the authority replied that the applicant’s cell had been recently renovated and satisfied the legal standards and that the applicant had no complaints in that regard.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Budapest. 6. On 17 April 2007 the applicant was questioned as suspect on charges of theft. 7. On 25 June 2008 the Budapest XIV/XVI District Public Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant for theft. 8. On 14 October 2011 the Pest Central District Court acquitted the applicant. 9. The first-instance judgment was upheld on appeal by the Budapest High Court on 8 October 2012. This judgment was served on the applicant on 19 October 2012.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant, who is of Roma ethnic origin, was born in 1969 and is currently detained in Jilava Prison. 6. On 11 February 2002 he was placed in detention in Arad Prison. On 12 October 2007 the Bucharest County Court convicted him of drug trafficking and sentenced him to twelve years and three months’ imprisonment. 7. At a medical examination upon his initial placement in Arad Prison on 11 February 2002, the applicant was found to be a heroin addict suffering from sequels of tuberculosis and psychopathic tendencies. 8. On 8 August 2006 on a transfer to Gherla Prison he was diagnosed with arterial hypertension, coronary heart disease and dyslipidaemia. 9. On 30 March 2009 the applicant asked the Bucharest District Court to suspend his sentence for medical reasons. He alleged that his heart condition required surgery which could not be performed within the prison health system. He further submitted that any delays in receiving the appropriate treatment for his condition would put his life at risk. 10. Following an order by the court, in April 2009 the applicant underwent a coronary angiography (X-ray of the heart’s arteries) and was seen by specialist doctors. According to the forensic medical report drafted by the Bucharest Institute of Forensic Medicine on that occasion, the illnesses he was suffering from included coronary heart disease, effort angina, a severe coronary lesion (80%-90%) and severe high blood pressure with an increased risk level. He was recommended bypass surgery in a public hospital, since it was considered that the hospitals within the prison system were not adequately equipped for such an operation. 11. By a letter of 17 September 2009 the authorities of the Giurgiu Prison, where the applicant was detained at the time, informed the court that the prison was capable of ensuring the security measures necessary for his admission to a public hospital for the recommended operation, therefore there was no need to suspend his sentence for that purpose. 12. On the basis of the above, on 1 October 2009 the Bucharest District Court rejected the applicant’s request to have his prison sentence suspended. 13. On 2 November 2009 the Bucharest County Court allowed an appeal on points of law (recurs) lodged by him against that decision. The County Court held that the first-instance court had correctly decided that the prison authorities could ensure the necessary security measures to take the applicant out of prison and admit him to a public hospital. However, precise details on this needed to be set out in the operative provisions of the judgment. Accordingly, the Bucharest County Court ordered his admission, under escort, to a cardiovascular centre run by the Ministry of Health to receive the necessary treatment. The judgment became final. 14. Between 22 October and 23 November 2009 the applicant was admitted to the cardiology ward of Jilava Prison Hospital. The doctors there recommended his transfer to Rahova Prison Hospital with a view to his admission to a public cardiovascular clinic run by the Ministry of Health. 15. Between 23 November and 3 December 2009 the applicant was hospitalised in Rahova Prison Hospital. According to the hospital’s assessment and treatment plan, he was recommended a cardiovascular examination at the Central Military Hospital (a public hospital in the Ministry of Health’s network) on 26 November 2009. According to the same document, on 27 November 2009 he was examined by a cardiology doctor, who established that he could not be operated on at that time. On the stamp appearing next to these remarks the doctor’s name was not visible, and the hospital where he was practising was not indicated. 16. On three occasions between March and September 2010 the applicant was seen by the prison doctor or admitted to prison hospitals for several days. 17. Between 7 and 28 October 2010 he was admitted to Rahova Prison Hospital for a new assessment of his heart condition. Open-heart surgery was recommended to him without delay, bearing in mind the length of time he had been suffering from heart problems. On 24 October 2010 he made a written statement which, in its relevant part, read as follows: “I was informed that the “open-heart” surgery I am about to undergo is very difficult ..., that is why I do not wish to undergo the open-heart surgery in the A.N.P. [prison] system ... because I fear for the worst and consider that it would be better to have this operation, which my life depends on, once my sentence has been suspended on medical grounds or once I have been released...” 18. On 4 June 2010 the applicant again asked the Bucharest District Court to suspend his prison sentence. He complained that the prison authorities had refused to enforce the final judgment of 2 November 2009 ordering his admission to a public hospital. He also alleged that he had first been diagnosed with heart problems in 2006. Subsequently, his condition had worsened every year and the prison authorities had failed to provide him with the appropriate treatment and to follow the specialist doctor’s recommendation to admit him to a public hospital for treatment and surgery. He submitted that the only way for him to have the bypass operation in a public hospital would be by having his sentence suspended. 19. On 3 August 2010 the Bucharest District Court struck out the applicant’s action as res judicata, since the matter had already been decided with final effect by the Bucharest County Court on 2 November 2009. 20. On 16 September 2010 the Bucharest County Court allowed his appeal on points of law and sent the case back to the first-instance court for re-trial, since the principle of res judicata did not apply to requests to have prison sentences suspended on health grounds. 21. In charge of the re-trial of the case, the Bucharest District Court ordered a new forensic expert report. The report submitted to the court on 11 March 2011 concluded that the applicant suffered from chronic coronary heart disease with effort angina and a 80%-90% coronary lesion, essential high blood pressure (stage I), chronic obstructive bronchopneumopathy (stage II) and persistent hepatitis C. The report further mentioned that, according to an examination carried out on 25 January 2011 by a cardiology doctor at the C.C. Iliescu Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, a new coronary angiography was necessary. The cardiology doctor had concluded that the applicant’s heart condition might benefit from surgical correction, to be performed in a specialist clinic, if this was found to be necessary following a new coronary angiography. 22. On 22 March 2011 the Bucharest District Court rejected the applicant’s action, holding that the prison health system had the ability to ensure that he underwent the recommended coronary angiography and received the appropriate medication for all his conditions. The court based its reasoning on the conclusions of the new forensic report and on the fact that on 24 October 2010 he had allegedly “refused to undergo surgery under escort”. 23. The applicant appealed on points of law against this judgment, emphasising that he had not refused to undergo surgery under security in a public hospital. 24. On 3 May 2011 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the appeal on points of law with final effect. It took into account the fact that the most recent forensic report drawn up in the applicant’s case concluded that his heart condition might benefit from surgical correction, to be performed in a specialist public clinic, if this was found to be necessary following a new coronary angiography. However, since the coronary angiography and treatment with medication could be ensured within the prison health system, and the applicant had not been recommended urgent surgery, the court concluded that the legal requirements for suspending his prison sentence had not been met. 25. In the course of 2011 the applicant was seen by the prison doctor on several occasions. On 27 July 2011 he was prescribed medication for his heart condition by a cardiology doctor at the ambulatory care clinic of Dej Prison Hospital. 26. Between 21 September and 12 October 2011 he was admitted to Dej Prison Hospital, where he was subjected to blood tests and lung and knee X-rays and was diagnosed, in addition to his other conditions, with gonarthrosis (chronic wear) of the left knee. He was released with the recommendation that he follow a special diet, stop smoking, take medication for high blood pressure, his lungs and hepatitis and undergo regular examinations of his heart. 27. Between 8 and 14 June 2012 he was admitted to Bucharest Prison Hospital because of chest pains and breathing difficulties. He was diagnosed in particular with left ventricular failure, as having previously suffered a heart attack, coronary lesions (discovered in 2009), moderate ischemic mitral failure and arterial hypertension. 28. To date the applicant has not undergone a new coronary angiography as recommended by the specialist doctor on 25 January 2011.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant is an Icelandic national who was born in 1978 and lives in Reykjavik. She is a journalist, working for the newspaper DV. In its weekend issue of 31 August to 2 September 2007, DV published an article about a high-profile criminal case which was being investigated at the time, involving Mr Y and his wife, Mrs X. Mr Y was the director of a Christian rehabilitation centre called Byrgið (the Shelter), which he had founded in 1996 to help people dealing with drug, alcohol and gambling addictions. Accusations against Mr Y surfaced in December 2006 when a television news programme broadcast a story in which he was accused of sexually abusing several female patients at Byrgið and embezzling public funds which had been granted to it. Documents, including sexually explicit video recordings, appearing to substantiate the allegations against Mr Y, were shown on the television programme. After the programme had been aired, three women filed complaints with the police against Mr Y for sexual abuse while they had been patients at Byrgið. Mr Y and his wife were both suspects in the criminal investigation. 6. The article published in DV contained interviews and comments made by Ms A, one of the women who had pressed charges against Mr Y, and Mr B, the financial manager at Byrgið and a close friend of Mr Y and Mrs X. The article was entitled “Satan’s attacks” and included, among other things, Ms A’s description of how Mrs X had been active in the so-called sex games organised by Mr Y, in which female patients at Byrgið had been manipulated and convinced to participate as they had been told that it was part of their healing process. According to Ms A, Mrs X had helped to seduce the women and had even sought sexual encounters with them by herself, without her husband. Ms A criticised the fact that Mrs X was at the time working as a teaching assistant in a school, stating “I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist but this person is crazy. I cannot see that she has anything to offer as a teaching assistant or in any kind of relief work. I do not know what she is doing in this school. In the light of [Mr Y’s] fantasies about primary school girls, I don’t think it is appropriate that the one who hunts for him works in a primary school.” 7. Mr B also stated that both Mr Y and Mrs X had sexually abused several patients of Byrgið and that he found it strange, considering Mrs X’s position, that she was allowed to work with children. 8. The article also referred to comments made by the lawyer of Mrs X and Mr Y, who said that the accusations against the couple were absurd. He also said that it was very common that people had the legal status of suspect during an investigation, without later being indicted, so it was not fair to implicate Mrs X in any criminal activity. Moreover, neither of the two had broken the law and he did not think that an indictment would be issued in the case. 9. The article also contained comments made by an officer of the police department dealing with the investigation. He confirmed that Mrs X had the legal status of a suspect during the investigation. 10. On 28 February 2008 Mrs X instituted defamation proceedings against Ms A, Mr B and the applicant before the Reykjavik District Court. In her writ, in which she made the judicial claims set out below, she argued that the following statements published by DV amounted to libel, in breach of Articles 234, 235 and 236 of the Penal Code, and requested that they be declared null and void (dauð og ómerk) under Article 241 (1): Judicial claim no. 1 [statements made and published by the applicant and (allegedly) Ms A] a. “[Ms A] ... claims to have had sex with the couple.” b. “[Ms A] ... says that [Mrs X] participated in sexual activities with her and [Mr Y].” c. “[Ms A] says that [Mrs X] was active in her and [Mr Y’s] sexual games at first but later on [Mrs X] became very jealous and [Mr Y] no longer wanted her to participate.” d. “She participated in our first times together.” e. “Then she started calling me and sending me messages stating that she wanted to meet me alone.” f. “[Ms A] says that [Mrs X] sought to have sexual encounters with her in private.” g. “He lied to her, too ...” h. “He also said that he was divorcing his wife.” i. “... this person is crazy. I cannot see that she has anything to offer as a teaching assistant or in any kind of relief work. I do not know what she is doing in this school ... not appropriate that the one who hunts for him works in a primary school.” j. “... had spread ugly stories about her. ‘His wife did it too. They would even come up with new stories every day.’” Judicial claim no. 2 [statements made and published by Mr B and the applicant] k. “They were being trained to be masters in lesbian sex. According to [Mr B] his wife participated in it.” l. “According to [Mr B] ... she was fully aware of [Mr Y´s] abuse of the patients and she sometimes participated in the sexual games.” m. “They both used tools and devices on them.” n. “[Mr B] finds it odd that a woman in this position is working with children.” 11. Mrs X requested that the applicant, Ms A and Mr B be punished. In addition she sought 3,000,000 Icelandic krónur (ISK) (corresponding approximately to 30,365 euros (EUR) at the time) plus interest in compensation for damages, an order under Article 241 (2) to pay her ISK 800,000 to cover the costs of publication in the press of the court’s reasons and conclusion in the defamation case, plus legal costs. 12. Mrs X argued that the responsibility for the statements lay with Ms A and Mr B, as they had appeared by name as the interviewees, and also with the applicant as the author of the article. 13. In her pleadings before the District Court, the applicant invoked the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 73 of the Icelandic Constitution. She further relied on section 15 of the Printing Act no. 57/1956, under which the author of a statement was responsible for the publication of its content. The article had indicated the identity of the authors of the disputed statements, which had been quoted directly from Ms A and Mr B. The applicant could therefore not be held responsible as the author of the statements. 14. The applicant further argued that the statements were true and accurate and that she should therefore be acquitted. Mrs X had been a suspect in a criminal investigation of sexual offences. Moreover, Mrs X had failed to substantiate her allegation that the applicant, who still believed the statements to be true, had intentionally acted in breach of the said provisions of the Penal Code. 15. In her written pleadings before the District Court, Ms A denied having made the statements which had been attributed to her. However, when giving oral evidence before that court she stated that she did remember having had a conversation with a journalist from the newspaper DV about the Byrgið case, but that she could not remember what she had said. 16. By a judgment of 4 December 2008 the District Court found that one statement, which had been attributed to Ms A (see item i. above), was defamatory but that it had not been proved that it originated verbatim from her. It therefore ordered only the applicant to pay Mrs X ISK 100,000 (approximately EUR 550 euros) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It also declared the statement null and void, but rejected all the other claims. 17. Mrs X and the applicant both appealed against the District Court’s judgment to the Supreme Court. In her written submissions to the Supreme Court Ms A argued that she should not be held liable on the ground, among others, that the applicant had not rendered her statements correctly in the article. 18. By a judgment of 18 February 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Court concerning Ms A and Mr B. It also upheld the District Court’s finding concerning the applicant’s liability, but only in respect of the latter part of the statement (“... not appropriate that the one who hunts for him works in a primary school.”). It ordered the applicant to pay Mrs X ISK 300,000 (approximately EUR 1,650) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and ISK 100,000 for the costs of publishing the judgment, plus interest. Its judgment contained the following reasons: “As stated above, the investigation, which gave rise to the statements that are being disputed in this case, ended with the Supreme Court judgment in case no. 334/2008. In that judgment, the conviction of [Mr Y] was based on, among other things, testimonies of witnesses who also testified that [Mrs X] had taken part in sexual activities with him and the female residents at the treatment centre, in a manner similar to the one that is described in the comments that were quoted from [Mr B] in items k. to m. It follows that it must be considered that those statements have been substantiated and their annulment will therefore not be raised under Article 241, cf. Article 235 of the Penal Code. Moreover, the statement in item n. in [Mrs X´s] claim for annulment contains a value judgment which does not violate the above-mentioned provisions of chapter XXV of the Penal Code. In accordance with the aforementioned, [Mrs X´s] claim for the annulment of those statements, which are quoted from [Mr B] and specified in items k. to n., is rejected. In her testimony before the District Court, [the applicant] stated that when preparing the article she had had a telephone conversation with [Ms A]. The telephone call had been recorded but the recording had not been preserved. She claimed that the comments attributed to [Ms A] in the article had been correctly quoted. [Ms A] testified before the District Court that she vaguely remembered a conversation with a journalist from DV, discussing ‘just something about the Byrgið case’. However, she did not acknowledge having said what was referred to in items a. to j., but she was asked about each statement. When considering that the statements, which are quoted from [Ms A] in items a., b., c., d. and h., are, according to the District Court´s premises in the aforementioned criminal case, in substance largely in line with her testimony before the police shortly before the article appeared, and that the defendant acknowledged having discussed the Byrgið case with a journalist from DV, but could not state what she thought she had said to the journalist about the case, it must be considered proved that the statements in these items are attributable to her. The statements in items e., f., g., i. and j. are, on the other hand, not in line with the testimonies given by [Ms A] during the investigation of the case against [Mr Y]. It is therefore not possible to consider that [the applicant] has been able to prove that those statements were quoted from [Ms A]. By the Supreme Court judgment in case no. 334/2008, [Mr Y] was convicted, among other things, of having had sexual relations with [Ms A] while she was a patient at Byrgið. However, the testimony given by [Ms A] about [Mrs X´s] participation in their sexual activities did not form the basis for that conviction. Regardless of whether it has been successfully proven that the statements in items a. to d. in respect of this subject are true, it must be considered that the above-mentioned statements quoted from [Mr B], which discussed in general terms [Mrs X´s] involvement in sexual activities with her husband and the female patients of Byrgið, were considered proved. In this connection it cannot be found that those statements, which were quoted from [Ms A], were likely to further damage [Mrs X´s] honour. There are therefore no grounds to annul them under Article 241, cf. Article 235 of the Penal Code. The content of the statements in items e., f., g., h. and j. do not fall within the scope of Article 234 or 235 of the Penal Code and [Mrs X´s] claim for their annulment is therefore rejected. The statement in item i. is twofold. The first part, which states ʽ... this person is crazy. I cannot see that she has anything to offer as a teaching assistant or in any kind of relief work. I do not know what she is doing in this school...ʼ, entails a value judgment which does not violate the above-mentioned provisions of chapter XXV of the Penal Code and it will therefore not be annulled. The latter part of the statement in item i., which states the following: ʽ... not appropriate that the one who hunts for him works in a primary schoolʼ is a different matter. These words indicated that [Mrs X] was guilty of criminal conduct, which has by no means been proven to be true. [Mrs X´s] claim for annulment is therefore accepted, with reference to Article 241, cf. Article 235 of the Penal Code. As is stated above it has not been proved that the aforementioned statement in item i. was correctly quoted from [Ms A]. [The applicant] was adequately identified as the author of the article and is therefore liable for its content, under section 15 (1) of Act no. 57/1956. The statement contained a coarse insinuation against [Mrs X] about a criminal act. The statement appeared in a conspicuous manner in a widely‑read newspaper and was likely to affect the dignity and professional reputation of [Mrs X]. On the other hand, the effects which the aforementioned criminal case and the discussion about it must already have had in that respect cannot be overlooked. In the light of all this, [Mrs X] is awarded ISK 300,000 in non-pecuniary damages. [The applicant] shall, with reference to Article 241 (2) of the Penal Code, be ordered to cover the costs of the publication of the judgment. [Mrs X] has not supported her claim for payment of costs with any data. A reasonable amount for the costs is decided to be ISK 100,000.”

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Ankara. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. 7. In the early hours of 28 April 2005 the applicant went to a primary school in the town of Sincan and poured paint on a statue of Atatürk[1] which was situated in the school’s garden. On the evening of the same day, he poured paint on a statue of Atatürk in the garden of another primary school. 8. On 6 May 2005 he did the same thing in the same two primary schools. 9. On 8 July 2005 the applicant poured paint on a statue of Atatürk in Sincan town centre. 10. On 12 September 2005 the applicant went to the same statue in Sincan town centre equipped with a tin of paint, paint thinner and a ladder. As he was about to open the tin of paint he was arrested by police officers and taken to a police station where he was questioned. In a statement taken from him on the same day the applicant was reported as having told the police officers that he had carried out the above-mentioned actions because he resented Atatürk and had expressed his resentment by pouring paint on the statues. 11. On the same day the applicant was brought before a prosecutor and then a judge, who ordered his detention on remand pending the opening of criminal proceedings against him. In his statement to the prosecutor the applicant maintained that he had carried out his actions to express his “lack of affection” for Atatürk. 12. In his indictment of 15 September 2005, lodged with the Sincan Criminal Court of First Instance (hereinafter “the trial court”), the Sincan prosecutor charged the applicant with the offence of contravening the Law on Offences Committed Against Atatürk (Law no. 5816; see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice” below). 13. In the course of the trial the applicant admitted that he had poured paint on the statues. He told the trial court that he had completed his university studies and qualified as a teacher. However, he had been unemployed for a long time because his application to work as a teacher had not been accepted by the Ministry of Education. He had carried out his offences in order to protest against the Ministry’s decision. 14. On 10 October 2005 the trial court found the applicant guilty as charged. Having regard to the fact that the offence was committed in a public place and on a number of occasions, the trial court sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment instead of the minimum term of imprisonment applicable under Law no. 5816, which is one year. The fact that the offence had been committed in a public place also led the trial court to increase the sentence by half in accordance with section 2 of Law no. 5816. The trial court also considered that the applicant had committed the offence on five separate occasions, and decided to multiply the sentence by five. The applicant was thus sentenced to a total prison term of twenty-two years and six months for his above-mentioned actions. 15. The applicant appealed. In his appeal he argued that, according to the provisions of the Criminal Code, only one sentence should have been imposed on him because, regardless of the fact that he had poured paint on the statues on five occasions, he had in fact only committed one offence and not multiple offences. In support of his argument, he submitted that his five actions had been carried out within a short span of time. 16. The applicant also pointed out that, instead of imposing on him the minimum one-year prison sentence provided for in Law no. 5816 in respect of each offence, the trial court had handed down a three-year sentence because it had had regard to the number of times he had poured paint on the statues. The trial court had then gone on to rely on the frequency of his actions when multiplying the sentence by five. 17. The applicant also challenged the trial court’s reliance on section 2 of Law no. 5816 when increasing his sentence by half because the offence had been committed in a public place. He drew the Court of Cassation’s attention to the fact that, by their nature, statues are placed in public places. 18. The applicant added that he had carried out his actions in order to express his “lack of affection” for Atatürk. As such, he had remained within the boundaries of his right to freedom of expression, which was guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. Thus, although it would have been reasonable to prosecute and punish him for damaging property, he had in fact been punished for expressing his opinions. 19. On 6 April 2006 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s argument that he had been expressing his opinion, but quashed the trial court’s judgment on the ground of, inter alia, that court’s failure to give adequate consideration to the possibility that the five separate incidents could form only one offence and not multiple offences. The Court of Cassation considered that the applicant had carried out his actions in order to protest against the Ministry of Education’s decision not to appoint him as a teacher. The case file was sent back to the trial court. 20. In its decision of 5 July 2006 the trial court agreed with the Court of Cassation’s conclusion, and held that the applicant’s actions had amounted to a single offence and not five offences. However, having regard, inter alia, to the “contradictory reasons” put forward by the applicant as justification for his actions, as well as “the effects of his actions on the public”, the trial court concluded that the applicant’s actions had amounted to “insults”, and deemed it fit to sentence him to five years’ imprisonment, which is the maximum allowed under Law no. 5816. The sentence was then increased by half because the acts had been committed in a public place. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 43 of the Criminal Code (see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice” below), the sentence was further increased by three quarters. The applicant was thus sentenced to a total of thirteen years, one month and fifteen days’ imprisonment. 21. Furthermore, in its decision the trial court set out the restrictions under section 53 of the Criminal Code which were to be placed on the applicant on account of his conviction. Accordingly, until the execution of his sentence, the applicant was banned from, among other things, voting and taking part in elections, as well as from running associations, parties, trade unions and cooperatives (see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice”). 22. The applicant appealed and repeated his arguments under various provisions of the Convention. He maintained, in particular, that he had carried out his actions in order to express his “lack of affection” for Atatürk and had thus exercised his freedom of expression guaranteed in Article 10 of the Convention. 23. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 5 February 2007. No mention was made in the Court of Cassation’s decision of the arguments raised by the applicant about his freedom of expression. 24. According to a document drawn up by the prosecutor on 16 April 2007 setting out the details of the applicant’s prison sentence, the date of the applicant’s release from prison was set as 22 October 2018, with a possibility of release on 7 June 2014 for good behaviour. 25. In the meantime, on 1 June 2005 the Law on the Execution of Prison Sentences and Other Security Measures (Law no. 5275) entered into force. This law sets out the circumstances in which prisoners can benefit from early release. 26. On 15 May 2007 the prosecutor responsible for the prison the applicant was serving his sentence in wrote to the trial court and asked for guidance in calculating the date of the applicant’s possible early release. The prosecutor stated that, for offences committed before 1 June 2005, Law no. 647 was applicable and, for offences committed after that date, the new Law no. 5275 would be applicable. The applicant had carried out his actions both before and after that date. 27. On 16 May 2007 the trial court considered that the critical date was the date of the commission of the final act and thus the new law was applicable. 28. The applicant lodged an objection against that decision and argued that most of his actions had been carried out before 1 June 2005 and that therefore, when calculating his prison sentence, the old law should be taken into account. If his prison sentence were calculated in accordance with the new law, he would spend four more years in prison. That objection was rejected by the trial court on 18 June 2007 and the date of the applicant’s possible release from prison was calculated in accordance with the document drawn up by the prosecutor on 16 April 2007 (see paragraph 24 above). 29. A request made by the applicant to the Ministry of Justice for his conviction to be quashed and another request to the Court of Cassation to rectify the judgment were rejected on 28 September 2007 and 28 December 2007 respectively. 30. On 11 June 2013 the applicant was released conditionally.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1981 and, according to the latest information available to the Court, lives in Aksaray. 5. On 2 April 2011 the applicant, who had been living in Turkey since 2008, was taken into custody in the context of an investigation into murder by a person or persons unknown. He was placed in the Yedikule Security Directorate in Istanbul. 6. On 4 April 2011 the applicant delivered his witness statement before a criminal court in relation to the aforementioned investigation. However, he was not released after delivering the statement; instead he continued to be detained in the Yedikule Security Directorate for having outstayed his visa. 7. On 5 April 2011 the applicant was transferred to Şehit Tevfik Fikret Erciyes police station in Fatih, Istanbul (“Fatih police station”), where he was placed in a custodial cell for the next five days. 8. On 10 April 2011 the applicant was sent to Kumkapı Removal Centre with a view to being deported. According to the applicant’s account, Kumkapı Removal Centre was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention. He had to share a dormitory measuring approximately 30‑35 sq. m with twenty-four to forty-five other people and the overcrowding of the centre resulted in hygiene problems. The building was infested with insects and the quality and quantity of the food provided was also fairly poor. Moreover, there was no provision for outdoor exercise. 9. On 12 April 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for refugee status. 10. On 27 April 2011 he claimed asylum from the Ministry of the Interior. 11. On 29 April 2011 the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit in the province of Aksaray as an asylum seeker and he was released from Kumkapı Removal Centre on the same day. It appears that the applicant was subsequently permitted to reside in Konya. 12. According to the latest information provided to the Court, the applicant’s applications for asylum and refugee status are still pending before the domestic authorities and the UNHCR respectively.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Liepāja. 6. On 1 November 2007, when the applicant was in the courtyard of her apartment building, two officers from the municipal police force (J.M. and J.L.) pulled up in a car. After having a conversation with the applicant they twisted her arms behind her back and forced her to approach their car. She was eventually let go, but later she started feeling ill and had to call an ambulance. The applicant submits that she still felt ill effects on her health more than a year after the events of 1 November 2007. 7. On 2 November 2007 the applicant wrote to the Liepāja City Public Prosecutor’s Office and requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against the officers responsible. The applicant stated that she had told the officers that they could go and talk in her apartment, after which one of them had grabbed her right upper arm and twisted her arm behind her back, she avoided the grip owing to pain, while the police officer shouted that he would teach her a lesson about resisting the police. At that moment the second policeman had grabbed and twisted the applicant’s left arm. The policemen had then tried to push the applicant into the back of their car. They eventually let her go after her neighbours intervened. Immediately after the policemen had left, the applicant had started experiencing health problems, namely, sharp pain in her chest, high blood pressure, pain in her back, neck and head, and a loss of feeling in her hands. She had called an ambulance and had been given an injection. The following day a general practitioner had issued the applicant with a sick leave certificate until 12 November 2007 and had prescribed painkillers and sedatives. The applicant asked the prosecutor to order an appointment with a forensic medical expert, pointing out that there were haematomas on her upper arms. 8. It appears that the prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings the same day. The case was forwarded to the State police for investigation. 9. On 4 November 2007 the applicant submitted a complaint to the head of the Liepāja City Municipal Police. In substance she repeated her account of the events of 1 November. In the concluding part of her complaint, the applicant requested that the actions of the two officers of the municipal police be investigated. She also pointed out that as a result of their actions she had suffered mental anguish and material and psychological harm. 10. On 21 January 2008 an inspector from the Liepāja City and District Police Department adopted a decision to terminate the criminal proceedings which had been initiated by the prosecutor. The decision was adopted on the basis of statements made by the applicant (see paragraph 11 below), by J.M. and J.L. (see paragraph 12 below) and by three other witnesses (see paragraph 14 below) as well as the forensic medical expert’s report (see paragraph 13 below) and a decision of the Liepāja City Municipal Police to take disciplinary measures in respect of J.M. and J.L. for having failed to properly document the administrative infraction committed by the applicant (see paragraph 15 below). 11. The applicant had testified that she had been washing her car in the courtyard of her neighbour’s house and that, after she had parked the car near her house, two policemen had pulled up. They had asked the applicant to approach their car, which she had not done because she had needed to return to her apartment urgently. The policemen had then warned her that she was disobeying police orders and had subsequently twisted her arms behind her back; she had tried to free herself from the grip. 12. The policemen J.M. and J.L. stated that they had been called out about an administrative violation – a car being washed in a public courtyard. Upon arrival at the scene they had noticed the applicant standing next to a car holding a bucket. J.L. had then invited the applicant to approach the police car so that a record of an administrative violation could be drawn up, which the applicant had refused to do and had started to walk away. The policemen had then taken her by the arms and started directing her towards the police car. Since the applicant had not demonstrated resistance, J.L. and J.M. had released their hold and subsequently taken statements from the applicant’s neighbours for the purpose of initiating administrative proceedings against her. 13. The forensic medical expert who had examined the applicant noted that each of her upper arms bore two haematomas. It was concluded that the haematomas could have appeared in the circumstances described by the applicant. The haematomas were described as minor injuries which would not have adverse medical effects for more than six days (“kas neizraisa īslaicīgus veselības traucējumus uz laiku virs 6 dienām”). The fact that the applicant had actually sought medical treatment for longer than six days was considered irrelevant, since the expert considered that the nature of her injuries did not warrant such extended treatment. 14. The three eyewitnesses to the events of 1 November all agreed that the applicant had ignored the requests of the police and that the policemen had therefore tried to detain her. The applicant had resisted and the officers had twisted her arms behind her back. After the applicant had stopped resisting, she had been released. 15. The findings of the internal investigation of the Liepāja City Municipal Police of 16 November 2007 disclosed that the policemen J.L. and J.M. had been penalised for their lack of diligence in drawing up a record of the administrative violation allegedly committed by the applicant (failure to obey the lawful order of a police officer). No mention appears to have been made of the alleged use of force against the applicant. 16. Taking into account the information set out above, the inspector concluded that the applicant had intentionally disobeyed the lawful order of a police officer (thus committing an administrative offence under Latvian legislation). As a result, J.L. and J.M. had used special restraint techniques (“pielietoja speciālos cīņas paņēmienus”), namely holding the applicant’s arms behind her back in order to detain her. The applicant had shown resistance while she was being directed towards the police car. Once she had stopped resisting, she had been released and J.L. had informed his supervisor of the events. In consultation with J.L.’s supervisor it had been decided not to bring the applicant to the police station but instead to initiate administrative proceedings against her. Administrative proceedings were initiated on 13 November 2007 and discontinued on 18 February 2008 because procedural time-limits had not been observed by the police. 17. The decision stated that, since the applicant had refused to cooperate with the police and had started to walk away, the policemen had had legitimate grounds for detaining her, as long as they observed the requirements set out in the Law on Police (see paragraphs 24 and 25 below). Nevertheless, J.L. and J.M. had failed to fulfil the requirements of section 13 in fine of the Law, which prohibits the use of special restraint techniques against women, other than in exceptional circumstances. As a result, the applicant had sustained minor injuries. Infliction of minor injuries is an offence proscribed by section 130 of the Criminal Law. Under section 7(3) of the Criminal Law, infliction of minor injuries is one of the crimes that are prosecuted privately by the victim. 18. The inspector further noted that J.L. and J.M. had not exceeded their official authority in contravention of section 317 of the Criminal Law. It was established that even though the policemen had violated the requirements of section 13 in fine of the Law on Police, it had to be taken into account that the applicant herself had disobeyed and resisted the police. Thus, taking into account the “nature, circumstances and consequences of the officers’ actions”, the inspector concluded that, pursuant to the explanations contained in section 23(1) of the Law on the Coming into Force and Application of the Criminal Law, there had been no substantial harm done to state authority, administrative order or the rights and interests of any person. Accordingly the inspector held that the municipal police had to decide whether J.L. and J.M. should be held disciplinarily liable for the violation of section 13 in fine of the Law on Police. In conclusion, it was decided to terminate the criminal proceedings for absence of corpus delicti. 19. The decision was conveyed to the applicant in a letter of 24 January 2008. The letter stated: “... You may appeal against the adopted decision to the Liepāja City Public Prosecutor’s Office within 10 days of receiving the decision. Please also note that section 7(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that the offence mentioned in section 130 of the Criminal Law (intentional infliction of a minor injury) is prosecuted privately. In the course of private prosecution criminal proceedings, the prosecutorial functions are carried out by the victim, who must lodge an application with a court. ...” 20. The applicant did not appeal against the decision of 21 January 2008. She did, however, submit a complaint to the Liepāja Court stating her intention to initiate a private prosecution under sections 130 and 156 of the Criminal Law. The complaint was dated 29 April 2008 and was marked as having been received at the court on 30 April. The applicant indicated that J.M. and J.L. had used special restraint techniques against her in contravention of the Law on Police, as a result of which she had been injured, which had been confirmed by a forensic medical expert. She further pointed out that she had incurred pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. Accordingly, she claimed damages. 21. On 7 May 2008 a single judge of the Liepāja Court issued a decision concerning the applicant’s complaint. The judge held that the limitation period of six months had expired and criminal proceedings could therefore not be instituted. He noted that he had received the applicant’s complaint on 6 May 2008, that is to say after the expiry of the statutory time-limit. Furthermore, the decision noted that the applicant had failed to specify which paragraph of section 130 formed the legal basis of her complaint, and had not substantiated in any way her claim under section 156. 22. The applicant appealed. On 2 June 2008 a single judge of the Kurzeme Regional Court dismissed her appeal. The decision noted that the last day on which J.L. and J.M. could have been charged by the way of private prosecution had been 1 May 2008. Since the applicant had lodged her complaint on 30 April 2008, it would have been physically impossible to initiate proceedings on 1 May 2008 because of the large number of procedural steps that would have had to be taken (for example, a copy of the complaint would have had to be sent to the accused, the accused would have had to be informed about their rights, the applicant would have had to be informed about the time and the place of the hearing, and the accused and other persons would have had to be called to the hearing). The judge further noted that the police’s decision not to initiate criminal proceedings was made on 21 January 2008, yet the applicant had waited for almost three months before lodging a request to initiate private prosecution proceedings. The decision had also explained that a refusal to initiate criminal proceedings did not preclude the applicant from lodging a civil claim in order to obtain compensation for the harm allegedly done. Finally it was remarked that the judge of the first-instance court had correctly held that the applicant had failed to specify which of the three paragraphs of section 130 of the Criminal Law formed the legal basis of her complaint. Under the Criminal Procedure Law, the judge of the first-instance court had a duty to establish whether the legal categorisation of the alleged crime was correct, since the accused had a right to know the exact content of the accusations against them. The decision of the Kurzeme Regional Court was final and not subject to further appeal.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicants were born in 1966 and 1996 respectively and live in Sheffield, the United Kingdom. 9. On 8 November 2010 the applicants arrived in Turkey from Iran. They were planning to fly to Manchester (the United Kingdom) from Istanbul Atatürk Airport on the next day. 10. At around 11 a.m. on 9 November 2010 the applicants were about to board the plane for Manchester, but were prevented from doing so by officers from the private airport security company. It was alleged that the second applicant’s passport photograph did not resemble him and could belong to someone else. Both applicants were taken to the “problematic passenger room” at the office of the passport police for an examination of the second applicant’s passport. 11. At 4 p.m. on the same day the applicants signed documents entitled “Report of apprehension and custody/rights of suspects and accused persons”, which set out their rights within the context of their arrest. According to the report which the first applicant signed, she had been apprehended on account of “being an accomplice to false identity”. The reports stated that a public prosecutor had been informed of the apprehension. However, the prosecutor did not order that the applicants be taken into police custody. The reports signed by the applicants do not bear the signature of an interpreter. 12. According to a report drafted by two police officers at 4 p.m. the same day, the police asked one of the public prosecutors at the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office for instructions on how to proceed. The public prosecutor ordered that the photographs, fingerprints and statements of the first applicant, S.T., be taken; that the second applicant, K.A., be transferred to the Bakırköy police station juvenile department and that the passport in question be seized for an examination of its authenticity. 13. The second applicant was kept at the office of the passport police at Atatürk Airport until 10.50 p.m. on 9 November 2010. He was then transferred to the Bakırköy police station juvenile department following the instructions of the public prosecutor, before being sent to the police criminal laboratory in order to establish his identity. 14. On 10 November 2010 the Bakırköy Magistrates’ Court decided to confiscate the second applicant’s passport. 15. On the same day the second applicant was taken to the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office. His statements were taken by the public prosecutor, who decided to impose an administrative sanction under the Misdemeanors Act and to release him. 16. Later on the same day the police criminal laboratory issued a report establishing the authenticity of the second applicant’s passport. 17. Subsequently, the police received instructions from one of the prosecutors from the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office to either hand the second applicant over to a family member or transfer him to social services. 18. At around 4 p.m. on 11 November 2010 the second applicant was handed over to one of his relatives, Mr. B.M., who was also the first applicant’s husband. At the same time his passport was given back to him as its authenticity had been proved. 19. Meanwhile, following the arrest of the first applicant at the airport on 9 November 2010, her photograph and fingerprints were taken. At 9 p.m. on the same day she was questioned by two police officers at Istanbul Atatürk Airport with the help of another police officer, who acted as an interpreter. The first applicant was informed that she had been brought to the office of the passport police on suspicion that she had helped the second applicant to travel abroad with a passport which had not belonged to him. In her statements, the applicant maintained that the second applicant was a relative of her husband and that his mother was a British citizen. She denied the veracity of the allegations against her. 20. The first applicant continued to be detained at the airport detention facility until 12 November 2010. 21. At 4 p.m. on 12 November 2010 the first applicant was transferred from the airport detention facility to the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre. 22. At 9.20 p.m. on 13 November 2010 the first applicant was deported to the United Kingdom. 23. On 12 November 2010 the applicants’ lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office against D.Ö., N.G. and Y.A., officers on duty at the time of the applicants’ detention at Istanbul Atatürk Airport. He requested that an investigation be initiated against the aforementioned officers who had abused their power and unlawfully deprived his client of her liberty. The lawyer submitted that the authenticity of the second applicant’s passport had been established and that the first applicant had been detained at the airport without a legal basis. He stressed that if his client had been suspected of having committed an offence, the police should have kept her for only twenty-four hours. He requested that his client be brought before a public prosecutor or be released. In his petition, the lawyer also complained of overcrowding and the material conditions of the airport detention room where his client had been held. 24. On 20 January 2011 the Bakırköy public prosecutor took statements from two police officers who had been on duty at the time of the first applicant’s detention. Both officers maintained that the first applicant had been kept in detention pending her transfer to the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre attached to the Istanbul security directorate. 25. On 22 January 2011 the Bakırköy public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against those police officers. In his decision, the public prosecutor noted that the first applicant had been subject to a criminal investigation following the instructions of the public prosecutor on duty and that she had been held at the foreigners’ detention centre (misafirhane - guesthouse) at the airport. The public prosecutor considered that the delay in the first applicant’s release had occurred on account of the administrative procedure regarding her deportation and that the police officers had not acted with the intention of committing the offence of abuse of power. 26. On 23 February 2011 the applicants’ lawyer objected to the decision of 22 January 2011. In his petition he brought to the attention of the Assize Court the issues of the alleged unlawfulness of the first applicant’s detention, the absence of information given to the first applicant about her arrest, the unlawfulness of her deportation without being notified by a deportation order and the alleged poor conditions of detention. 27. On 14 March 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court dismissed the first applicant’s objection, holding that the decision of 22 January 2011 had been in accordance with the law. 28. In the meantime, following the criminal complaint lodged by the first applicant, a disciplinary inquiry was initiated into D.Ö., N.G. and Y.A. by the Istanbul security directorate. On 16 February 2011 the Istanbul security directorate decided not to bring disciplinary proceedings against the officers in view of the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s decision of 22 January 2011. In the decision, it was noted that the applicants had been subject to misdemeanour proceedings and that the first applicant had not been in police custody but had been held in the foreigners’ detention centre (misafirhane - guesthouse) at the airport. 29. On 28 February 2011 the applicants’ lawyer objected to the decision of 16 February 2011. In his petition, he submitted the same arguments as those he had submitted to the Istanbul Assize Court on 23 February 2011. 30. On 2 June 2011 the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to render a judgment on the merits of the first applicant’s objection, given that the decision of 16 February 2011 had not refused authorisation to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers. The court noted that in order to annul the administrative decision in question, the applicant should have lodged an action with the administrative courts. 31. The first applicant claimed that the detention room at Istanbul Atatürk Airport had been overcrowded at the time of her detention, which had lasted seventy-seven hours. She submitted that she had been kept in a room measuring approximately 32 sq. m, which had been divided into two sections by a partition. One of the sections had a window but the other one received no natural light. The applicant claimed that she had been kept in the latter section with at least twenty other people at a time. There was no fresh air and the overcrowding of the room led to problems of hygiene. The applicant also claimed that there had been no furniture in the room suitable for sleeping on, and that in any case it had been impossible to lie down due to the overcrowding. She also claimed that she had had no access to fresh air throughout her detention at the airport and that she had been unable to go to the toilets unless she had been accompanied by officers. 32. The Government maintained that the applicant had been detained in a waiting room located in the legal services department of the airport security directorate. The room in question measured 32 sq. m. It received direct sunlight through windows and had a ventilation system. They noted that the room had a padded sitting area for rest and sleep, and was cleaned every day. The Government contended that detainees used the toilet of the security directorate. According to the Government’s submissions, in total eighty-seven persons were detained in that room between 9 and 12 November 2010. 33. The Government submitted a black-and-white photograph of the room where the first applicant had been detained. The photograph shows two separate areas divided by a partition. The area on the right side of the photograph has two windows, two divans and three chairs. This part of the room appears to be well lit. The left side of the photograph shows a dark area without a window in which there are seven chairs and a divan. Both areas appear to be clean. 34. The Government further submitted two lists to the Court containing the names of the detainees kept in police custody at the Istanbul Atatürk airport detention facility on 9 and 12 November 2010, the reasons for their detention, the nationality of the detainees, and the date and time of their arrest. According to those lists, at 7 p.m. on 9 November 2010 a total of thirty-eight persons were detained at Istanbul Atatürk Airport (thirty-one men and seven women), whereas at 8 a.m. on 12 November 2010, there were forty-nine detainees in custody (thirty-seven men and twelve women). The first applicant’s name appears on the list of 9 November 2010 but not on the list dated 12 November 2010.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest. 6. At 8.04 a.m. on 31 August 2010 the applicant was apprehended at his home and a house search was conducted on the premises until 11.12 a.m. During this time, the applicant told the officers that he intended to attend a funeral later that day. He submits that his request was “unofficially” dismissed at once. The Government denied this allegation. 7. On completion of the house search, the applicant was committed to the offices of the Central Investigating Prosecutor’s Office, about seven kilometres away from the cemetery in question. 8. From 1.35 p.m. onwards the applicant was interrogated as a suspect of attempted misappropriation of funds. At the beginning of the procedure, he formally requested that the authorities allow his attendance at his stepmother’s funeral which took place on the same day, at 2.15 p.m. The request was rejected with the reasoning that its granting would have contravened the purpose of the arrest. The interrogation ended at 2.29 p.m. on the same day. 9. The applicant then complained to the Attorney General. That office rejected the complaint on 10 September 2010, pointing out that the relevant decree did not allow as such for arrestees – as opposed to those in pre-trial detention – to attend funerals, for which reason the refusal of his request had been lawful.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1974. According to the latest information available to the Court, he lives in Istanbul. 7. The applicant arrived in Turkey in 2006. The parties are in dispute as to whether he entered the country legally at the time. 8. On 4 or 6 November 2009 the applicant was apprehended in Edirne while trying to flee to Greece illegally. Following brief periods of detention at İpsala Gendarmerie Command and Tunca Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre (“Tunca Accommodation Centre”), he was transferred to Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre (“Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre”) in Kırklareli, with a view to being deported. The exact date of his transfer is unknown to the Court; while the applicant claimed that he had been transferred on 9 November 2009, the Government maintained that the transfer had taken place on 11 November 2009 without, however, presenting any documents in support of their submission. 9. It appears that throughout his stay at Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre, the applicant made numerous attempts to seek asylum, all of which were allegedly ignored by the national authorities, until he was able to get in touch with a lawyer. On 27 July 2010 he lodged a new asylum request through his lawyer, which was admitted by the domestic authorities for processing. 10. On 1 September 2010 the lawyer requested the applicant’s immediate release from Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre in two separate letters sent to the Kırklareli Governor’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior, claiming thqsat his detention in prison-like conditions had no basis in domestic law and also contravened Article 5 of the Convention. 11. On 24 September 2010 the applicant was granted asylum seeker status by the Ministry of the Interior, along with a temporary residence permit in Kırklareli, valid until the completion of the asylum procedure. 12. On 27 September 2010 he was released from Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre. 13. Following his release, on 30 September 2010 the applicant went to Istanbul instead of staying in Kırklareli as ordered. On 1 October 2010 he was arrested on suspicion of attempted burglary and placed in police custody at Şehit Tevfik Fikret Erciyes district police station in Fatih, Istanbul (“Fatih police station”). On the same day, he was interrogated by the Fatih public prosecutor and the Fatih Magistrates’ Court, which ordered his release. The relevant decision was not made available to the Court. 14. Despite the court order for his release, the applicant was taken back to Fatih police station, where he was placed in a holding cell in the basement. 15. On 4 October 2010 the applicant’s lawyer visited him at the station and requested his release. He was, however, informed that this would not be possible as there was an order for his deportation. 16. On 7 October 2010 his lawyer went to Fatih police station once again, to visit the applicant and to inspect the conditions of his detention. According to the lawyer’s notes, there were two cells with iron bars in the basement of the station where the applicant was being held, both of which measured approximately 2 x 4 m. On the day of his visit, the applicant was sharing a cell with approximately ten other foreigners, all of whom were sitting on the floor with their backs against the wall and sharing three blankets between them. There were similarly ten to twelve people in the other cell. There was a small vent in the wall measuring approximately 30 x 50 cm, which let in very little light. There was also a pile of rubbish outside it. During their meeting, the applicant also gave a detailed account of his detention conditions, which the lawyer noted as follows. The number of detainees in the cell varied between seven and fifteen. There were no beds, and there was no room for more than three people to lie down at the same time. They were only provided with three blankets and four small pillows to share, and there was no heating. The cell, which also lacked natural light and sufficient ventilation, was always cold and there was no provision for outdoor exercise. The food provided was also insufficient; they had to pay to receive more. It appears that the lawyer brought the applicant and some of the other detainees sandwiches after the meeting, as they had complained of being hungry. 17. On 9 October 2010 the applicant was transferred to Kumkapı Removal Centre pending his deportation, apparently because the basement of Fatih police station was flooded. 18. On 12 October 2010 Fatih police station was inspected by the Fatih public prosecutor, who found the detention facility to be in compliance with the standards set out in the relevant regulations without, however, going into any details about the specific conditions in his brief report. 19. On 19 October 2010 the applicant was conditionally released from Kumkapı Removal Centre and instructed to go to Kırklareli, after it became apparent that he had already been granted a temporary permit to reside there in September 2010. 20. It appears that following his release from Kumkapı Removal Centre, the applicant went to Edirne instead of going to Kırklareli as instructed. On 12 November 2010 he was apprehended in Edirne close to the Greek border while attempting to flee to Greece once again. He was placed back in Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre. 21. During a headcount conducted on 1 December 2010, officers at Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre noticed that the applicant was intoxicated and behaving rowdily. He was therefore separated from the other detainees and escorted to the management office. According to the Government, as one of the officers was unlocking the door to the management office, the applicant collapsed unexpectedly in the corridor and hit his face on a radiator. The impact caused heavy bleeding in his left eye, and he started throwing up, in a semi-conscious state. According to the applicant, however, he did not fall but was forcefully pushed by one of the officers against the radiator and was severely beaten up once he landed on the floor. 22. The applicant was then taken to the Kırklareli State Hospital, where it appears he was diagnosed with alcohol poisoning. Following some initial medical treatment, on 3 December 2010 he was admitted to the ophthalmology department of the Trakya University Hospital, where he underwent an operation on his left eye, as well as various related treatments. He was discharged on 23 December 2010. The medical report drawn up on the day of his discharge indicated that he had been admitted to the ophthalmology department with symptoms of pain, reduced vision and exophthalmos in the left eye, which he had stated had been caused by a blow to his eye. He was diagnosed with widespread corneal erosion and a retrobulbar haemorrhage. He was also found to have an orbital floor fracture caused by the blunt trauma to his eye, for which he underwent an operation. 23. In the meantime, the Kırklareli public prosecutor had initiated an investigation into the incident of 1 December 2010 of his own motion. According to the documents in the case file, on 2 December 2010 he took a statement from a caretaker working at Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre, who had witnessed the applicant suddenly collapse while the two officers escorting him had been unlocking the door. 24. Moreover, on an unspecified date, the police took a statement from the applicant in hospital, who at the time alleged that he had lost his balance because he had been pushed by an officer. 25. Following his discharge from hospital, the applicant was taken to Şehit Hayrettin Yeşin police station in Kırklareli on 23 December 2010 to give a statement, in the presence of his lawyer, regarding the injury he had sustained on 1 December 2010. The applicant stated that he had no complaints of ill-treatment and that he had lost his balance and fallen over because he had been intoxicated at the time. He was subsequently told he was free to leave, but was ordered to stay in Kırklareli in accordance with his residence permit. 26. On 21 January 2011 the Kırklareli public prosecutor decided not to bring any charges in relation to the applicant’s injury in the light of his statement of 23 December 2010. 27. In the meantime, the applicant went to Istanbul after being released from detention on 23 December 2010, despite being specifically ordered to remain in Kırklareli. On 28 December 2010 he lodged a criminal complaint with the Fatih public prosecutor against the police officers who had allegedly ill‑treated him at Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre. He argued, in particular, that following the headcount on the evening of 1 December 2010 he had been taken to the management office, where one of the officers had grabbed him by the collar and tossed him against the wall, as a result of which he had hit his eye on the radiator and passed out. He claimed that he had not told the truth at Şehit Hayrettin Yeşin police station, as he had been warned by an officer that his detention would be prolonged if he pressed charges. 28. When the public prosecutor subsequently summoned him to make a statement, the applicant stated that he had previously misrepresented the facts as he had been scared, without giving any more details as to why. He added that he had also been severely beaten up by the officers after he had collapsed onto the floor, and admitted that he had been drinking kolonya (citrus cologne), mixed with a soft drink, prior to the incident. 29. On 31 January 2011 the Fatih public prosecutor issued a decision to the effect that he had no jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı) in respect of the applicant’s complaints, and referred the matter to the Kırklareli public prosecutor. 30. On 8 April 2011 the Kırklareli public prosecutor took statements from two of the suspected police officers and three witnesses, also police officers. The two suspects denied the applicant’s allegation that they had attacked him. All of the witnesses corroborated that the applicant had been very drunk on the relevant day, and one of them, who had been at the scene of the incident, stated that the applicant had fallen over without anyone having pushed him. 31. On 9 September 2011 the Kırklareli public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute because of insufficient evidence. Referring to the inconsistency between the applicant’s statements, the public prosecutor stressed that although the applicant had stated that he had been scared to tell the truth at Şehit Hayrettin Yeşin police station on 23 December 2010, there had been no reason for him to be scared, particularly because he had made his statement in the presence of his lawyer. 32. The applicant did not object to the decision of the Kırklareli public prosecutor, despite being entitled to do so before the Edirne Assize Court. 33. On 18 May 2011 the applicant’s request for asylum was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior, as he had failed to comply with the requirements to be granted asylum seeker status as set out in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Geneva Convention”) and the Turkish Asylum Regulation.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Balassagyarmat. 5. The applicant is a television journalist. From 15 February 2001 he was employed by the State television company (Magyar Televízió Zrt.). Following an amendment of his work contract on 10 July 2002, he was appointed for an indeterminate period. At the material time, he was chairman of the Trade Union of Public Service Broadcasters (Közszolgálati Műsorkészítők Szakszervezete), active within the television company. The applicant was in charge, as editor and presenter, of a periodical cultural programme called Éjjeli menedék (Night Shelter) which involved interviews with various figures of cultural life. 6. According to point 10 of his work contract, the applicant was bound by professional confidentiality. He was obliged not to reveal any information acquired in connection to his position the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to either his employer or any other person. According to the labour contract, he also took note of the fact that a breach of this obligation would lead to the immediate termination of his employment. 7. Following the appointment of a new cultural director the applicant had apparently contacted the television company’s president, since he had perceived the new director’s conduct in modifying and cutting certain contents of Éjjeli menedék as censorship. He had received no response to his complaint. 8. On 6 June 2003 the editor-in-chief of Éjjeli menedék addressed a letter to the board of Magyar Televízió Zrt. stating, amongst other things, that the appointment of the new cultural director had led to censorship of the programme by his suggesting modifications to, and the deletion of, certain contents. On 19 June 2003 an article appeared in the online version of a Hungarian daily (Magyar Nemzet Online)[1], containing the editor-in-chief’s letter as well as a statement of Magyar Elektronikus Újságírók Szövetsége (Hungarian Union of Electronic Journalists), inviting the board to end censorship in the television company. 9. In 2004 the applicant published a book entitled “Az antifasiszta és a hungarista – Titkok a Magyar Televízióból” (The Antifascist and the Hungarista - Secrets from the Hungarian Television). Each chapter of the book contained an extract from different interviews recorded in 2003, which had not been broadcast in the cultural programme, apparently on the basis of the instructions of the cultural director in question. Along with the extracts, the applicant included numerous in-house letter exchanges between the cultural director and the editor-in-chief concerning the suggested changes in the programme. Moreover, the chapters contained a short introduction or summary of the events, reflecting the applicant’s personal opinion. The preface of the book said that it would contain documentary evidence of censorship exercised in the State television company. It called on the readers to decide whether the documents indicated the cultural director’s legitimate exercise of his supervisory functions or an interference with the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. 10. On 11 November 2004 the television company dismissed from employment the applicant and the editor-in-chief of Éjjeli menedék, with immediate effect. The reason for the applicant’s summary dismissal was that, by publishing the book in question, he had breached the confidentiality clause contained in his labour contract. 11. The applicant challenged his dismissal in court. He argued, inter alia, that he had received the in-house letter-exchange in connection with his position as the chairman of the trade union, in order for him to take steps against the alleged censorship at the television company, and that he had published the impugned book in that capacity. 12. In its judgment of 8 April 2008 the Budapest Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action, stating that he had breached his obligations under point 10 of his work contract by publishing information about his employer without its consent. The court also found that the applicant’s position as chairman of the trade union did not exempt him from the duty of confidentiality. 13. The applicant appealed, arguing that the publication of the book had not in any way prejudiced his employer or any other person and that he had not acquired the published information in connection with his position but in his capacity as trade union chairman. In that position, and in representation of the interests of his colleagues, he was obliged to act against the censorship within the television company. Thus, according to the applicant, the conditions of dismissal, as stipulated in point 10 of his labour contract, had not been fulfilled. 14. On 13 February 2009 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the appeal on the same grounds as the Labour Court, adding that the publication of the book might have had a certain detrimental effect on the television company’s reputation. Furthermore, in the Regional Court’s opinion, the impugned measure had not constituted an abuse of rights on the employer’s side, since the applicant had voluntarily agreed to the restriction of his freedom of expression by signing his labour contract. 15. The applicant pursued a petition for review before the Supreme Court. He argued that he had been unlawfully dismissed in that his conduct, namely to inform the public about censorship at the State television company in a book – which was a last-ditch option given that his efforts vis-à-vis the management to have the matter investigated had been to no avail – should have been regarded as an exercise of his freedom of expression rather than an unlawful breach of his labour contract, especially in view of the fact that the allegation of censorship had not been refuted. 16. On 26 May 2010 the Supreme Court found against the applicant. Referring to the applicant’s submission concerning freedom of expression, it held that the scope of the case did not extend beyond the examination of the applicant’s breach of his labour obligations. In the court’s view, the applicant had indeed breached the contract by means of the unauthorised publication of internal documents of his former employer. The court expressly excluded from its scrutiny the question whether or not the applicant’s freedom of expression justified, in the circumstances, a formal breach of his labour contract. This decision was served on 13 July 2010.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Budapest. 6. At the material time, the applicant lived in the United States. On 14 January 2001 she arrived in Hungary on a visit. She had a laptop with her which she had bought on 9 January 2001 in the United States for 1,624 US dollars (approximately 1,500 euros (EUR) at that time). She did not declare it to the airport customs authority, since in her opinion it constituted a ‘travel item’, exempted from customs duty, within the meaning of section 110 of Act no. C of 1995 and section 185(3) of the implementing Decree of the Act. 7. Although she specified to the authorities that she was living abroad and had no intention of importing the laptop into Hungary but intended to take it back to the United States on departure, the customs authority nevertheless seized the laptop and filed a criminal report, charging the applicant with smuggling. 8. A bill of indictment was preferred by the Budapest X/XVII District Public Prosecutor’s Office on 28 April 2001. In the bill of indictment, the prosecutor proposed that the seizure of the laptop be discontinued according to section 102(1) of Act no. I of 1973 on the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the applicant be ordered to pay the value of the item instead of its confiscation. 9. On 9 May 2001 the Pest Central District Court, without holding a hearing, found the applicant guilty as charged, imposed a fine of 23,000 Hungarian forints (HUF; approximately EUR 90) and ordered the release of the laptop on the payment of another HUF 100,000 (approximately EUR 390) as ‘value equivalent to confiscation’ (elkobzás alá eső érték). 10. On 23 June 2001 the applicant requested a hearing, seeking her acquittal. 11. No hearing took place subsequently, and the laptop remained under seizure. 12. On 24 April 2006 the District Court found that the case was statute-barred and discontinued the proceedings. It ordered the release of the laptop. This decision became final on 2 June 2006. 13. On 28 June 2006 the customs authority invited the applicant to recover the laptop. 14. The applicant submitted that during these proceedings she had moved back to Hungary. On her repatriation, she could have imported her belongings, including the laptop, free of customs. However, its release was in these circumstances nevertheless subject to the payment of customs duty. Since the laptop had meanwhile become technically outdated and thus worthless, she decided to have it returned to the United States rather than recover it.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Vilnius. 6. By an agreement of 18 July 2000 and an order of the Vilnius Region Administration of 21 June 2000 the applicant acquired from the State a plot of land measuring 0.2 ha for 59,776 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 17,312 euros (EUR)) and registered it in the land registry in her name. According to the documents issued by the authorities, the plot was designated for residential use (namų valda). The applicant had previously, in 1999, acquired from a private person the remains of a burned-down house (registered in the real estate registry) which stood on that land, with the intention of renovating it. 7. In December 2002 after establishing that the sale was not in accordance with the law, a public prosecutor applied to the courts to have the sale contract and related legal acts of the authorities annulled in order to protect the public interest. 8. On 23 September 2003 the Vilnius 1st City District Court dismissed the claim. That decision was upheld by the Vilnius Regional Court on 18 December 2003. The courts rejected the arguments of the prosecutor that the applicant had not been entitled to buy the plot for residential use and that residential use of the land was no longer possible; however, on 26 April 2004 the Supreme Court remitted the case for re-examination. 9. On 10 February 2005 the Vilnius 1st City District Court dismissed the claim again. 10. On 17 June 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court overturned that decision and granted the claim; the applicant and her lawyer participated in the hearing. It was established that in 1999 to 2000 the State’s plot had not been used as “residential land”, and its sale had breached Government Resolution no. 260 of 9 March 1999 and the Law on Territorial Planning. 11. The transfer of title to the applicant was annulled and pursuant to Article 1.80 of the Civil Code the land was returned to the State while the applicant received back the money she had paid for it. 12. On 13 February 2006, by way of written proceedings, the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant as unfounded. 13. According to the information submitted by the parties, in 2011 the disputed plot was assigned for restitution to a private individual, V.J. The applicant was still the owner of the remains of the house; however, its use or renovation was uncertain, given that she had no right to use the area of land on which the house stood.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Lagos, Nigeria. 6. On 27 September 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. On 28 September 2007 the Krasnogvardeiskiy District Court of St Petersburg authorised his detention pending investigation. The court noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious offence entailing a custodial sentence of up to seven years, that he did not have a permanent place of residence or employment in St Petersburg and that, if released, he might re-offend or abscond. The applicant appealed. 7. On 9 October 2007 the applicant was charged with robbery. 8. On 22 October 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint against the investigator, claiming that he had been charged belatedly. He argued that he should have been released in view of the applicable rules of criminal procedure, which provided that, if a suspect was not charged within ten days of his arrest, he was to be released immediately. 9. On 26 October 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint lodged on 22 October 2007, noting that the appeal proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention authorised by the court order of 28 September 2007 were still pending. On 29 January 2008 the City Court upheld the decision of 26 October 2007 on appeal. 10. On 1 November 2007 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the court order of 28 September 2007 on appeal. 11. On 21 December 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 27 January 2008. On 26 February 2008 the City Court upheld the relevant decision on appeal. The applicant remained in custody during the criminal proceedings against him. 12. On 1 April 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. 13. On 22 July 2008 the City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 14. Following the applicant’s arrest, the investigator in charge of his case seized the applicant’s Nigerian passport, which was supposed to be filed together with the other materials concerning the criminal investigation. It appears that the passport was lost. 15. In response to a complaint lodged by the applicant, the regional department of the interior carried out an inquiry, which confirmed the applicant’s allegations about the loss of the passport. The investigator was subjected to a disciplinary sanction. On 5 September 2010 the applicant was informed accordingly. As regards the issuance of a new passport, the applicant was advised to contact the Nigerian consulate. 16. It appears that the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to bring a civil action against the domestic authorities for the loss of his passport. On 17 December 2010 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims against the Ministry of Finance. The applicant appealed. He did not inform the Court about the outcome of the appeal proceedings. 17. As regards the timeframe of the applicant’s detention, the Government provided the following information: Period of detention Type of detention facility From 28 September 2007 to 29 February 2008 Remand prison no. IK-1 (former remand prison no. IZ-47/1) (from 19 to 24 December 2007, from 3 to 7 January, from 16 to 21 January, and from 31 January to 2 February 2008 the applicant was held in a disciplinary cell) From 29 February to 21 March 2008 Regional prison hospital From 21 March to 4 August 2008 Remand prison no. SIZO-1 (from 14 to 21 July 2008 the applicant was held in a disciplinary cell) From 4 August 2008 to 2 November 2009 Correctional colony no. IK-6 From 2 to 16 November 2009 Remand prison no. SIZO-1 From 16 November 2009 to 11 February 2010 Correctional colony no. IK-6 From 11 February to 27 September 2010 Remand prison no. SIZO-1 (on 18 February 2010 the applicant was held in a disciplinary cell; from 24 June to 28 July 2010 the applicant was held in a hospital ward) From 27 September to 7 October 2010 Correctional colony no. IK-6 From 7 October 2010 to 14 February 2011 Remand prison no. SIZO-1 From 14 February to 5 March (?) 2011 Correctional colony no. IK-6 From 21 March to 6 June 2011 Remand prison no. SIZO-1 From 6 June to 1 August 2011 Correctional colony no. IK-5 From 1 August to 26 September 2011 Remand prison no. SIZO-1 18. On 26 September 2011 the applicant was released, having served his prison sentence. 19. According to the Government, all the cells in the remand prison, except for the hospital wards, measured 8.4 square metres. They were equipped with four beds. The number of inmates detained with the applicant never exceeded four persons in each cell. 20. The Government submitted the following excerpts from the remand prison population register: Date Cell number Cell population, including the applicant 26 October 2007 300 1 19 November 2007 79 3 19 November 2007 108 1 27 November 2007 108 3-4 5 January 2008 Disciplinary cell 1 13 January 2008 108 2 17 January 2008 Disciplinary cell 1 2 February 2008 Disciplinary cell 1 14 December 2008 108 3 15 February 2010 114 3 18 February 2010 114 2 19 February 2010 Disciplinary cell 1 2 March 2010 30 2 14 March 2010 53 2 5 May 2010 53 2 16 July 2010 21 (hospital ward) 7-8 12 August 2010 69 2 27 August 2010 749 4 20 September 2010 752 4 21. All the cells were equipped with a ventilation system in working order. The windows in the cells had small vents, which could be kept open to ensure access to fresh air. The metal grills on the windows with openings measuring 10 by 20 cm did not prevent access to daylight. 22. During the daytime the cells were lit with a 60-75-watt electric bulb. During the night the cells were lit with a 40-watt electric bulb. The temperature in the cells was maintained at +22oC in the summer and +18oC in the winter. 23. The toilet in each cell was separated from the living area by a 1.5‑metre high wooden partition and a door, which ensured sufficient privacy. The distance between the toilet and the dining table was at least 2 metres. There was a sink with hot and cold running tap water. 24. The meals provided to the detainees were in compliance with ration and quality standards. The applicant was allowed to take a fifteen-minute shower at least once a week. The bed sheets were changed weekly. The inmates were allowed daily outdoor exercise for at least an hour. (b) The applicant’s submissions 25. According to the applicant, he was held in cells nos. 42, 101, 142, 149, 741, 742 and 778 of the remand prison. All the cells were of the same size and the conditions of detention were the same. 26. The cells were overcrowded and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. On many occasions persons suffering from hepatitis or HIV-infected inmates were placed in the same cell. The toilet was not separated from the living area of the cell. The ventilation did not function. It was hot in the summer and cold in the winter. The food was of a low quality. The inmates were not provided with toiletries. The mattresses and bed sheets were of a poor quality. The light was constantly on. The inmates were allowed only one-hour’s daily exercise. 27. The Government submitted the following information as regards the applicant’s detention in the correctional colony: Period of detention Unit no. Total surface in square metres (including exercise area) Number of inmates assigned to the dormitory Total number of sleeping places per unit Sanitary facilities per unit From 4 to 21 August 2008 Quarantine 295 (189?) 47 50 5 wash sinks 4 toilets 6 urinals From 21 August to 9 September 2008 Unit 11 (section 2) 363 57 100 10 wash sinks 4 toilets 1 urinal From 9 September to 2 November 2009 Unit 16 (section 2) 578 45 100 6 wash sinks 6 toilets 6 urinals From 16 November 2009 to 5 February 2010 Unit 16 (section 2) 578 36 100 See above From 5 to 11 February 2010 Disciplinary cell 8 (surface area of the cell alone) 1 2 No data From 27 September to 7 October 2010 Quarantine 295 (189?) 48 50 See above From 14 February to 5 March (?) 2011 Quarantine 295 (189?) 30 50 See above 28. At all times the applicant was provided with an individual bed. The windows in the dormitories ensured adequate access to daylight. The lavatory was separate from the living area of the units. Each toilet was located in a separate cubicle. The quarantine section had five wash sinks, four toilets and six urinals. In unit 11 there were ten wash sinks, four toilets and one urinal. In unit 16 there were six wash sinks, six toilets and six urinals. The temperature and lighting were adequate. The inmates had access to an outdoor exercise area in accordance with the schedule. (b) The applicant’s submissions 29. According to the applicant, the dormitories were overcrowded and he did not have an individual bed. He was assigned to a dormitory measuring 46 sq. m and housing from twenty-five to thirty inmates. On many occasions persons suffering from hepatitis or HIV-infected inmates were placed in the same dormitory. The bathroom in the building housing 150 persons was equipped with three toilets. The inmates were allowed one shower per week. The shower room measured 36 sq. m and was equipped with fourteen shower heads. Each person had from approximately seven to thirteen minutes to take a shower.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

13. The applicant was born in 1968 in Khanabad, Uzbekistan. 14. In 2008, in the face of potential prosecution for religious extremism, he fled Uzbekistan with a forged Kyrgyz passport under an assumed name. On 19 April 2008 he entered the territory of the Russian Federation. 15. On 6 September 2009 he obtained a Russian passport using forged documents. 16. On 26 January 2009 and 28 September 2012 the applicant was indicted by the investigative authorities of Uzbekistan on charges of terrorism, inciting religious hatred, encroaching upon the constitutional order, illegally crossing the State border, organising a criminal group, producing and disseminating material threatening public security and order, participating in religious extremist, separatist, and fundamentalist movements, and smuggling. Since the Uzbek authorities could not locate him he was indicted in absentia. 17. According to the Uzbek investigative authorities, in 2006 and 2007 the applicant had been actively involved in operating the terrorist organisation ‘Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan’, which has extensive ties with Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and Libyan Jamaat. He allegedly took part in recruiting and training terrorists, smuggling extremist material into Uzbekistan, organising gatherings where extremist material, including video and audio recordings, were viewed and distributed, fundraising for terrorist acts, training recruits in using firearms and hand-grenades, and facilitating illegal border crossings by the leaders of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. The Uzbek authorities further contended that members of the above-mentioned group had been involved in terrorist acts that had taken place in Khanabad and Andizhan on 25 and 26 May 2009. 18. On 27 January 2009 the Andizhan Criminal Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The order was issued in absentia and the reasons given were the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the fact that he could not be located. On the same day an investigator issued an international search and arrest warrant against him. 19. In March 2010 the Uzbek investigative authorities sent a notification to the Ministry of Internal Affairs Anti-Extremism Department in the Orenburg Region that according to their intelligence, the applicant was living in the region. 20. On 10 March 2010 the applicant’s name and his two aliases were put in the ‘RM’ public transport search and identification system. The record mentioned his alleged association with radical and extremist organisations. 21. On 11 June 2012 the ‘RM’ system registered the sale of a ticket for a passenger train going from Moscow to Bishkek. The ticket had been bought under the applicant’s assumed name, which he used in his Russian passport. An alert was sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. 22. On 13 June 2012 at approximately 2.45 a.m. the applicant was apprehended at Orenburg railway station by officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Anti-Extremism Department and Federal Security Service (FSB). During the initial identity check, he used his Russian passport bearing an assumed name. 23. After the applicant’s true identity had been established, an ‘express interview’ was conducted with him by Orenburg’s assistant transport prosecutor, Mr M. The applicant stated during the interview that he had fled Uzbekistan after learning that he was suspected of taking part in watching extremist material, while his prosecution was actually politically motivated. He further stated that since his entry into Russia, he had been living on various construction sites in Moscow, Tula and Orenburg. 24. At 4.10 a.m. a record of apprehension of a person under an international search and arrest warrant was drawn up and the applicant was officially informed of his rights and the nature of the charges in Uzbekistan. 25. On the same day at 1.40 p.m. he was once again interviewed by Mr M. During the interview, he was informed of the right not to incriminate himself and that he would be provided with an interpreter if needed. He expressed his wish to give answers in Russian. The interview record was verified and signed by him. 26. The applicant stated during the interview that in 2008 he had decided to leave Uzbekistan because of possible prosecution for watching video material which was considered extremist by the Uzbek authorities. He further stated that he had procured a forged Kyrgyz passport under an assumed name, which he had used to enter Russia and obtain Russian citizenship. In particular, the interview record contained the following passages: “... Until 2008 my permanent income came from exchanging currency in Khanabad and selling fruit... In April 2008 an acquaintance [working] in law enforcement informed me that my name was on the list of people suspected of extremism. Aware that my acquaintances had been prosecuted for watching extremist material and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, I decided to evade law enforcement, since I had also watched that material... In June 2012 I decided to return to Uzbekistan because I no longer wished to be a fugitive and it was necessary to make contact with the law enforcement bodies in Uzbekistan to resolve the situation surrounding [their] search [for me]. As to the criminal case against me I learnt of its existence from my wife during a phone conversation in 2009...I did not understand what the charges against me were, but presumed that I had been prosecuted for watching the extremist videos. I did not commit any of the crimes I am accused of, except illegally crossing the Uzbek border. In spring 2008 I watched a documentary at home with some of my acquaintances about the killing of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq by US soldiers – I presume they were Muslims because the majority of population in those countries are followers of Islam. We did not like the actions of the American soldiers and we discussed that. I do not think I committed any crime... I did not request political asylum or refugee status in the Russian Federation... I believe that my prosecution is politically motivated, because I do not like Uzbekistan’s policies on entrepreneurs; an opinion I expressed to the State institutions of Uzbekistan.” 27. Later that day the applicant was placed in a pre-trial detention facility, SIZO-3 in Orenburg, pursuant to the detention order issued by the Andizhan Criminal Court. The Embassy of Uzbekistan in the Russian Federation was notified of the arrest. 28. On 12 July 2012 an extradition request under the CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 1993 (“the Minsk Convention”) was lodged by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Uzbekistan. Making reference to the provisions of the Minsk Convention and Uzbek legislation, the request included the following assurances: (a) The applicant would not be extradited to any third country or prosecuted for any crime which did not serve as the basis for his extradition without Russian authorities’ agreement. He would be free to leave Uzbekistan after the trial and serving his sentence. (b) The Uzbek legislation in force prohibited criminal proceedings on a discriminatory basis, the use of torture or ill-treatment, and guaranteed respect for defence rights. (c) He would be provided with medical assistance if necessary. 29. On 13 July and 6 December 2012 and on 6 March 2013 the applicant’s detention was extended by the Promyshlenniy District Court of Orenburg. 30. On 12 November 2012 the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation examined the merits of the extradition request and authorised it in respect of the charges of terrorism, participating in an armed group, and illegally crossing the Uzbek border. The request was refused in respect of the other charges due to a lack of evidence and/or their being no comparable crimes under Russian law. The extradition authorisation did not examine any risks to which the applicant might have been exposed in Uzbekistan and merely stated that “no obstacles to extraditing Mr Mamazhonov under international law or the legislation of the Russian Federation had been established”. 31. On 28 November 2012 the applicant’s representative Mr Gladkikh lodged a complaint against this decision, alleging that the applicant was at a heightened risk of being subjected to torture if extradited to Uzbekistan. The complaint stressed that since the applicant’s asylum application had not been definitively dismissed on appeal, any extradition authorisation was unlawful. 32. The complaint alleged that contrary to the interpretation of the law in force provided by Ruling no. 11 of 14 June 2012 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (see paragraphs 98 below), the prosecutor had neglected his incumbent duty to consider the risk of torture in Uzbekistan, having regard to the general situation in the destination country and the applicant’s personal situation, and the fact that the text of the extradition authorisation gave no reasons in this regard. 33. The applicant’s representative also referred directly to eleven of the Court’s judgments issued between 2008 and 2012 in which a violation under Article 3 of the Convention had been found in similar circumstances. He argued that the prosecution authorities had disregarded the Court’s conclusion that individuals accused of crimes concerning politics and religion constituted a “risk group” systematically exposed to ill-treatment in Uzbekistan. Accordingly, their extradition, just like the applicant’s, had been contrary to the Russian Federation’s obligations under the Convention. 34. Referring to reports by the United Nations agencies, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and CIVICUS in the last nine years, the applicant’s representative alleged that the use of torture and ill-treatment was commonplace in respect of people accused of religiously and politically motivated crimes. 35. Lastly, relying on the official position of certain Russian State institutions, Mr Gladkikh highlighted the fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its note of August 2009 “On human rights in Uzbekistan” stated: “... criminal trials are characterised by a dependence on forced confessions, and a lack of adequate legal representation... it is also noted that people convicted of anti-State, religious and politically motivated crimes are incarcerated in much stricter regimes than others...” 36. The complaint also quoted a March 2011 letter from the head of the Third CIS Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the director of the Federal Migration Service: “... Considering the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights, it is actually possible to state that currently the extradition, deportation or administrative removal to Uzbekistan of any person wanted by the law enforcement agencies... will constitute a violation of the Convention...” 37. On 27 December 2012 the Orenburg Regional Court dismissed the complaint. It stated that the approval of the request was lawful, properly reasoned, and took into account the assurances of the Uzbek authorities. Furthermore, it considered that the ill-treatment allegations were merely a defence strategy of the applicant, who had procured a forged Kyrgyz passport under an assumed name, illegally crossed the Russian border on 19 April 2008, obtained Russian citizenship under an assumed name, and lodged an asylum request only after his apprehension under the international search and arrest warrant. The court noted that he had been convicted in Russia on 1 October 2012 of forgery and fined 6,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (150 euros (EUR)) (see paragraphs 40-41 below). It also stated that the extradition authorisation given by the Deputy Prosecutor General did not presume an automatic transfer of the applicant to Uzbekistan, and that no extradition could take place before his asylum proceedings had finished. 38. On 28 December 2012 the applicant’s representative Mr Gladkikh appealed to the Supreme Court against the Regional Court’s decision, relying on essentially the same arguments as presented before. In addition, he stated in his appeal that contrary to the decision of the Regional Court, the Uzbek authorities had not explicitly stated that the applicant would not be subjected to torture, but had limited their assurance to a statement that the legislation in force prohibited it (see paragraph 28 above). The representative referred the Supreme Court to the Court’s judgment in the case of Khaydarov v. Russia ( no. 21055/09, § 105, 20 May 2010), where the existence of domestic and international law provisions prohibiting ill‑treatment was not considered to be a sufficient assurance in itself. 39. On 12 March 2013 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision and extradition authorisation. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “... [In his appeal] Mr Mamazhonov indicates that [the Regional Court] ignored the fact that ... he had requested asylum and thus may not be returned to Uzbekistan. The court did not examine all the circumstances and adopted a wrong decision... The attorney Mr Gladkikh requests in the interests of Mr Mamazhonov...that extradition proceedings be terminated. The attorney believes that [the Regional Court] violated Russian and international asylum law and did not examine the fact that the applicant had requested asylum. The court also did not examine any evidence proving that Mr Mamazhonov might be subjected to torture...in Uzbekistan. In his opinion, the case file does not contain guarantees that [the applicant] would not be subjected to unlawful actions and [the decision must therefore be quashed as unreasoned]... When the Prosecutor General’s Office decided to transfer Mr Mamazhonov to the law enforcement agencies of Uzbekistan, his asylum request was denied. [Furthermore, the Supreme Court restated the reasons for the denial of asylum and the assurances provided by the Uzbek authorities.] ... The arguments of Mr Mamazhonov and his counsel that in Uzbekistan he will be persecuted on religious and political grounds are unfounded, since there is no objective proof. The material in the case file demonstrates that Mr Mamazhonov’s prosecution by the Uzbek authorities is of a general nature and is not related to the policies of that State. Mr Mamazhonov did not submit to the court any convincing arguments giving weighty grounds to believe that the Uzbek authorities might subject him to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or that he might be persecuted on the grounds of race, religious beliefs, citizenship, ethnicity, belonging to a social group, or political convictions. [The Supreme Court] finds no grounds to annul the decision...” 40. On 10 July 2012 a criminal investigation was initiated by the Russian authorities in respect of the use of forged identification papers by the applicant. 41. On 1 October 2012 the Justice of the Peace for the 8th Circuit of the Promyshlenniy District of Orenburg convicted the applicant of using of forged documents (a Russian passport) and fined him RUB 6,000 (EUR 150). During the trial, he acknowledged his guilt, but stated that the procurement of false Kyrgyz and Russian identification papers had been a necessary measure to avoid his arbitrary prosecution in Uzbekistan for the crimes he had not committed. 42. On 3 August 2012 Mr Gladkikh applied on the applicant’s behalf for asylum, alleging that the criminal charges against him had been “fabricated” after he, a successful businessman, had refused to pay bribes and provide pay‑offs to the Uzbek authorities. 43. On 20 August 2012 the applicant was interviewed by the immigration authorities and his answers were recorded in an asylum questionnaire. 44. On 24 August 2012 the Orenburg Regional Department of the Federal Migration Service refused to consider the merits of his request, because in their opinion it had been lodged only to evade prosecution in Uzbekistan, and the applicant had failed to substantiate his alleged fear of return. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “... In the questionnaire, Mr Mamazhonov states that the reasons for his arrival in Russia were the extortionist demands of the authorities, unlawful persecution for his business success, and fear for his life. He submitted no other reasons, and stated that he had never been a member of religious, political or non-governmental organisations. According to the questionnaire, there were no incidents of violence against him Uzbekistan; he never complained of persecution to the law enforcement or State institutions in Uzbekistan or to human rights organisations. He explains his unwillingness to return to the country of origin by his fear of prosecution for serious offences by the law enforcement authorities in Uzbekistan... The fact that Mr Mamazhonov, expressing his wish to receive protection from the Russian Federation... did not lodge his asylum request at the border crossing in 2008... or attempt to legalise his status during the lengthy period thereafter, and [did so] only after his apprehension [under the warrant] for crimes committed in Uzbekistan, demonstrates that the objective reason for...his arriving in Russia was to evade prosecution for crimes committed outside of Russia... During his stay in Russia between June 2008 and August 2012, Mr Mamazhonov had also committed an offence by [being in possession of] forged documents and unlawfully obtaining a Russian passport... It follows that the analysis of the reasons given in the asylum questionnaire, case file and search for the applicant for the crimes committed outside of Russia... does not lead to a conclusion [that there is any risk of him being persecuted in Uzbekistan].” 45. On 16 October 2012 the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg in reviewing the above decision, established that the applicant had illegally crossed the Russian border on 19 April 2008, procured a forged Kyrgyz passport under an assumed name, obtained Russian citizenship under that name, and lodged an asylum request only after his apprehension under the international search and arrest warrant. On that basis the court rejected his complaint against the immigration authorities’ decision. 46. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision. He alleged that both the immigration authorities and District Court had failed to consider his claims that he risked ill-treatment if returned to Uzbekistan. 47. On 11 January 2013 the Orenburg Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision and immigration authorities’ refusal to consider the asylum request. In particular, it stated: “Information from reputable international human rights organisations concerning the unfavourable political climate in Uzbekistan and practice of malicious persecution of those accused of crimes against the State was not proven by objective evidence within the framework of Mr Mamazhonov’s case and may not serve as a basis for the annulment of a judicial decision... Moreover, a competent State institution deciding on asylum status independently evaluates the situation in a specific country relying on its own sources, and the opinion of human rights organisations is not determinative of such a decision...” 48. On 7 February 2013 the applicant lodged a request for temporary asylum in Russia, but it was denied by the immigration authorities on 6 March 2013. 49. On 8 March 2013 the applicant’s representative Mrs Yermolayeva submitted to the Court a request for the application of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to stay the applicant’s extradition to Uzbekistan until further notice. The request specified that the applicant’s extradition would expose him to a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The evidence and arguments presented to the Court were essentially the same as the evidence and arguments previously presented to the national authorities. 50. On 11 March 2013 the Acting President of the First Section indicated to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited to Uzbekistan until further notice. 51. By a letter of 15 May 2013 the Russian Government informed the Court that they had taken relevant steps to guarantee that the applicant would not be extradited to Uzbekistan until further notice. In particular, the Prosecutor General’s Office, departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and Border Guards Service had been ordered to prevent the applicant’s extradition or removal from Russia, and other law enforcement agencies had been instructed to comply with the measure applied. 52. On 11 June 2013 the applicant’s representative Mr Gladkikh was informed that the applicant would be released on 12 June 2013. However, since it was a public holiday in Russia the release was rescheduled to 9 a.m. the following day. Mr Gladkikh was informed in person. 53. A decision to release the applicant dated 13 June 2013 was issued by the Prosecutor General’s Office. It restated the procedural history of the case available to the Russian authorities at that time and explicitly mentioned the application of an interim measure by the Court. In the absence of any further legal grounds for the applicant’s detention, his release was ordered. 54. According to statements submitted to the Court by the applicant’s representative, he arrived at the detention facility on 13 June 2013 at 6 a.m. Despite his previous enquiries about the time of release, Mr Gladkikh was informed at 7.30 a.m. that the applicant had been released at 7.15 a.m. and had left in an unknown direction. According to the Government’s submissions, the release had taken place at 6.30 a.m. 55. Later the same day Mr Gladkikh lodged a request with the Investigative Committee of the Orenburg Region. The relevant parts of the request read as follows: “... [On 12 June 2013] officers at the checkpoint [of SIZO-3] informed me that... Mr Mamazhonov was going to be released on 13 June, no earlier than 9 a.m. Relying on the veracity of the information provided, I arrived this morning at SIZO-3, where I was informed at 7.15 a.m. [sic] that Mr Mamazhonov had already been released and had departed in an unknown direction. I was refused information about the precise time of release [sic]. At the present moment I’m not aware of the whereabouts of my client. I draw your attention to the fact that during a private conversation, Mr Mamazhonov asked me to be personally present during his release and to further support him until the regularisation [of his immigration status] in Russia; he strongly denied any possibility of returning to Uzbekistan voluntarily. Having regard to these facts, and the fact that there have previously been instances of disappearances from Russia of Uzbek nationals charged with State crimes, whose extradition was being sought [by the Uzbek authorities], I have grounds to believe that Mr Mamazhonov was abducted by interested parties with a view to transferring him to Uzbekistan. Accordingly, I request [that]: 56. Similar requests were lodged with the Prosecutor General’s Office, Border Guards Service of the FSB, and the police. 57. On 14 June 2013 the administration of the detention facility SIZO‑3 sent a letter to the Embassy of Uzbekistan, informing it of the applicant’s release. 58. Following Mr Gladkikh’s request a preliminary inquiry into the applicant’s alleged disappearance was initiated by the Internal Affairs Department OP-4 in Orenburg. 59. On 17 June 2013 the inquiry was handed over to the Investigative Committee, since the crime suspected fell under their jurisdiction. The inquiry case file reached them on 19 June 2013. 60. On 19 June 2013 the investigator examined the applicant’s cell in SIZO-3 and seized from the administration the applicant’s personal file and the available video surveillance recordings. 61. On the same day he questioned four officers working at the detention centre who were present during the applicant’s release. They stated that the applicant (i) had been released at the expiry of the court-ordered detention, (ii) had been informed of his obligation to register with the immigration authorities, (iii) had not made any complaints or requests during his release, and (iv) had not been approached after his release by anyone in uniform, Asian-looking or anyone else. 62. On 20 June 2013, in reply to the investigator’s request, the Federal Migration Service informed him that there was no record of the applicant in their databases, and the Border Guards Service of the FSB stated that due to the absence of any IT systems at the borders of the Orenburg Region it was not possible to provide information about a specific person. 63. On 21 June 2013 the period of inquiry was extended by ten days to collect further evidence. 64. On the same day, in reply to the investigator’s request, the Internal Affairs Department in Orenburg Region stated that since 13 June 2013 the applicant had not been apprehended or detained by the police. 65. On 26 June 2013 the applicant’s cellmate in SIZO-3, Mr G., was interviewed after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury. The relevant part of the interview record stated as follows: “.... In June 2013 he was released... He did not know about his release from detention because he was woken up early in the morning and told that he was being released...he did not inform me of his future plans. I am not aware where he might be.” 66. On 26 June 2013 an officer of the Anti-Extremism Department in the Orenburg Region, Mr Ab., who was involved in apprehending the applicant, was questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury. He stated, in particular, that (i) the applicant was of no interest to his agency since there was no evidence of his involvement in criminal activities in Orenburg, (ii) that he was not aware of the applicant’s possible whereabouts, and (iii) that there had been no contact or exchange of information between his agency and the Uzbek law enforcement agencies. 67. On the same day the investigator requested from the Transport Prosecutor’s Office in Orenburg a copy of the extradition case file, in order to fully consider the possibility of the applicant’s forced removal to Uzbekistan. It was provided on 28 June 2013. 68. On the same day, in reply to the investigator’s repeated request, the Federal Migration Service informed him that there was no record of the applicant crossing the State border after 11 June 2013. 69. On 27 June 2013 an officer of the FSB in the Orenburg Region, Mr St., who was involved in apprehending the applicant, was questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury. His statements were essentially the same as those provided previously by Mr Ab., the officer of the Anti-Extremism Department in the Orenburg Region (see paragraph 66 above). 70. On the same day the applicant’s representative Mr Gladkikh was interviewed after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury. The relevant part of the interview records stated as follows: “On 12 June 2013 I arrived at SIZO-3 in Orenburg with Mr Al. and Mr R.M., who lives in Uzbekistan but works in Moscow and who is a brother of Mr Mamazhonov... I was told [by officers of the detention facility] that the client’s release would not take place that day, since the papers were not ready... [I was told to return the next day by 9 a.m.] ... While Mr Mamazhonov was detained in SIZO-3 I frequently visited him, but he never informed me of any visits from law enforcement agents or anyone else [or] the use of unlawful investigative measures or torture. If something like that had happened to him, he would have told me about it. I personally have also never been contacted about Mr Mamazhonov by agents of the State or other services of Russia or Uzbekistan; from what I know the same applies to his relatives... ... [O]n 13 June 2013 I arrived at SIZO-3 at around 6 a.m. The officer on duty refused to provide me with any information on Mr Mamazhonov... [she] told me that at 7.15 a.m. he was being released... At 9 a.m. I called SIZO-3 and was informed that Mr Mamazhonov had been released at 8 a.m. To date I have not been aware of his whereabouts, his relatives do not have this information either, as he did not make any contact. I am saying that his Russian passport has been seized and his Uzbek passport has been lost. Before his release Mr Mamazhonov did not inform me of an intention to move somewhere after his release; on the contrary, he wanted to regularise his status in Russia. I personally believe that certain parties from Uzbekistan interested in his return are implicated in [his] disappearance. There have been similar cases in Russia in the past.” 71. Later that day, in reply to the investigator’s request, the Transport Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Orenburg stated that there was no record of the applicant buying train or plane tickets between 13 and 27 June 2013. 72. On 27 June 2013, relying on the results of the preliminary inquiry, the Investigative Committee initiated criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s disappearance and suspected murder. The investigation was assigned to a group of investigators from the Investigative Committee, the FSB, and the regional Ministry of Internal Affairs. 73. On 1 July 2013 a detailed plan of the investigation was adopted by the group of investigators, presided by Mr L. The plan contained several dozen investigative measures each assigned to specific investigators. The measures were aimed at detecting the current whereabouts of the applicant, discovering information and evidence, and verifying five existing theories about the applicant’s disappearance. The theories adopted were that: (a) the applicant was alive, but was voluntarily avoiding contact to evade the law enforcement agencies; (b) the applicant was alive, but could not contact anyone due to serious illness; (c) the applicant had left Russia to further engage in terrorist activities in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and other countries; (d) the applicant had died and his death had been caused by an illness, accident or other non-criminal circumstances; or (e) the applicant had become the victim of a crime (murder or kidnapping). 74. Later that day an investigator examined the area around SIZO-3 and established that there had been no outside video surveillance cameras placed there. 75. On 8 July 2013 the applicant’s representative Mr Gladkikh challenged the opening of an investigation into his client’s disappearance and suspected murder, arguing that the investigation should be based on his suspected abduction. On 27 July 2013 he was informed by the investigator that there was no evidence to substantiate the suspected abduction. 76. Later that day the applicant’s representative Mr Gladkikh was once again interviewed after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury. His statement was essentially the same as his previous one (see paragraph 70 above). 77. On 9 July 2013 the release officer of SIZO-3, Mrs L.S., was questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury. The relevant parts of the interview records read as follows: “... [The prosecutor’s decision to release Mr Mamazhonov on 13 June 2013 due to expiry of the maximum period for his detention] arrived at SIZO-3 on 11 June 2013 at around 5.30 p.m. ... During the afternoon of 11 June 2013, the lawyer Mr Gladkikh...called me to inquire about the date of release... [Mrs L.S. informed him that it would be 13 June 2013]... Around 10 a.m. on 12 June 2013 I was informed by officers at the checkpoint that Mr Gladkikh had visited [SIZO-3 to inquire about Mr Mamazhonov’s release]... On 13 June 2013 I arrived at work at around 6.30 a.m. at the request of the head of SIZO-3, Mr L.A.... [and immediately took part in Mr Mamazhonov’s release]... During the release, Mr Mamazhonov asked me whether his lawyer was waiting for him, but I could not tell [him] because I did not know...” 78. On the same day the head of SIZO-3, Mr L.A., was questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury. The relevant parts of the interview records read as follows: “... During Mr Mamazhonov’s detention in SIZO-3 and after the prosecutor’s decision to release him, I was made aware of [his] concerns for his safety after release. Accordingly, in order to ensure his safety I made the decision to release [him] before regular working hours... I took part in [his] release...as an officer in charge of supervising the release procedure... [After release] Mr Mamazhonov left the premises of SIZO-3. He left the area and passed the guards alone... I am not aware if anyone was meeting him...” 79. On 15 July 2013 three security guards of SIZO-3 who were present during the applicant’s release were questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury. They all stated that the release had taken place at around 6.30 a.m. and were not aware if anyone had been expecting the applicant, since they could not leave their duty stations in the building. 80. On 12 July 2013, in reply to the request of 8 July 2013, the administration of SIZO-3 informed the investigation that while there were video surveillance cameras covering the building and adjacent area, the recordings of 13 June 2013 were no longer available due to the expiry of their storage period. However, the recording from the camera at the checkpoint of the detention facility covering the period between 5 and 6.57 a.m. that day was available (see paragraphs 91-95 below), since a local copy had been saved following a request in the course of the preliminary inquiry. 81. On 17 and 20 July 2013 the FSB in the Orenburg Region informed the chief investigator that they had complied with the investigative tasks assigned to them. They stated that they had contacted the National Security Service of Uzbekistan in order to obtain information about the applicant’s possible whereabouts, establish a list of his relatives, and procure the necessary background information. They further stated that according to their sources, the applicant might have been assisted in illegally crossing the Russian border by Mr Al., with whom he had previously collaborated extensively in illegal activities. 82. On 1 August 2013 the applicant’s cellmate in SIZO-3, Mr G., was repeatedly questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury. He mostly confirmed his previous statements, supplementing them with the following relevant passages: “... Mr Mamazhonov told me that in Uzbekistan he had been prosecuted for terrorism. He told me that in Uzbekistan he might have been sentenced to 18 to 19 years’ imprisonment... [He] also told me that in the summer of 2012 he had decided to travel to Uzbekistan by train, because he was worried about his two or three wives and seven children... ... He had only learnt of the international search warrant after his apprehension... [He] did not want to return to Uzbekistan, because he would have been sentenced to lengthy imprisonment there... [He] also mentioned that if there was no possibility of him staying in Russia, he would travel to Kyrgyzstan or Kazakhstan, where he had acquaintances... [A day before his release he was informed of it] Mr Mamazhonov told me that his lawyer was going to inform his friends and relatives of the day of release and that they were going to come and meet him... [He was convinced that his friends and relatives] were going to help him relocate to another country if he was not able to stay in Russia, because he did not want to return to Uzbekistan...” 83. On 5 August 2013 Mr R.M., the applicant’s brother, was officially recognised as a victim by the investigative authorities. 84. On the same day the investigator sent a request for legal cooperation to the Uzbek authorities. The competent authorities were requested to inform Mr R.M. of his status in the investigation conducted in Russia and question him according to a non-exhaustive list of approximately thirty questions concerning the applicant’s background, state of health and mind, social and family ties, political and religious affiliations, and questions in respect of the events of 12 and 13 June 2013. Lastly, the Uzbek authorities were requested to collect a saliva sample from him for his DNA, in the event of a future need for identification. 85. On 7 August 2013, in reply to the request of 5 August 2013, the Federal Migration Service informed the investigation that there was no record of Mr Mamazhonov crossing the Russian border. 86. According to the material in the Court’s possession, other investigative activities between June and August 2013 included a screening of the applicant’s possible contacts, a search for possible witnesses, monitoring of the sale of train and airline tickets, putting the applicant on the list of missing persons, and sending legal cooperation requests to neighbouring regions. 87. The applicant’s representatives’ submissions of 20 December 2013 addressed to the Court were accompanied by an undated letter by Mr Gladkikh (the applicant’s second representative). The relevant parts of the letter stated: “... in the beginning of September 2013 I received a phone call on my mobile from a man identifying himself as a relative of my client, Mr Mamazhonov. The man told me [the applicant] was being held in custody in Andizhan and that the criminal case would be sent to trial soon. Due to fears for his safety, he refused to provide me with detailed information on the case...or to state his full name. Furthermore, from a private conversation with an investigator, Mr L., I have learnt that he (the investigator) is preparing to go on a mission to Uzbekistan in order to get statements from Mr Mamazhonov himself concerning the circumstances of the criminal case opened following his disappearance. He further informed me that the statements...would be obtained by officials of the Uzbek law enforcement agencies, and that just he himself would be present during the interview.” 88. On 21 April 2014 the applicant’s representatives informed the Court of the recent developments in the case. In particular, the letter stated: “... The applicant’s lawyer Mr Gladkikh recently received a call from an unknown person...[who stated] that the applicant was currently being detained in Khanabad (Uzbekistan) and that the criminal case against him was about to be handed over to the court. The man also informed me that the applicant’s brother (who was acknowledged as a victim of the crime in the criminal investigation into the applicant’s abduction in Russia) was also currently being detained in Uzbekistan... The applicant’s representatives also pointed out that the initial authorities’ intention to conduct certain investigative measures in Uzbekistan was not realised for unknown reasons. The intention to visit Uzbekistan confirms in itself that the applicant was in Uzbekistan... The detention of the applicant’s brother, Mr R.M. (whose name was mentioned in the request for cooperation of 08.08.2013...) illustrates the reluctance of the Uzbek authorities to provide the Russian investigative authorities with an opportunity to get an independent statement from [him]...” 89. No other information is available to the Court regarding the progress of the criminal investigation. 90. The applicant’s whereabouts are currently unknown. 91. The Government submitted as evidence to the Court a recording from the video surveillance camera placed inside SIZO-3 in Orenburg facing the checkpoint of the detention facility, opposite the only entrance to the building. The recording covers the period between 6.13 and 7 a.m. on 13 June 2013, the day of the applicant’s release. 92. On the recording, at 6.17 a.m. a person identifying himself as Mr Ikromzhon Makhkamovich Mamazhonov is brought before an officer responsible for releasing detainees. He gives the same date and place of birth as those indicated (in paragraph 13) above, and gives an address in Orenburg as his place of residence. He is provided with an identity certificate, and after receiving it at 6.19 a.m. leaves, presumably after being released from the detention centre. 93. The recording of the next forty minutes shows several people approach and pass the checkpoint. 94. At 6.26 a.m. the following fragments of a conversation are audible: “Woman: Permission to enter. ... Man [over the phone]: Where are you? The exit? Alone? ... Woman: ... civilians... Man: Civilians? Woman: No... [he] is in uniform and two civilians...” 95. At 6.43 a.m. a senior officer approaches the checkpoint, presumably from outside the building: “Officer at the checkpoint: Good morning, Sir! Senior officer: Hello! Have you seen anything? Officer at the checkpoint: ... Senior officer: I am asking you if you have seen anything. Officer at the checkpoint: No. Senior officer: OK. I am asking just in case.” 96. On 10 July 2013 the Ministers’ Deputies at the 1176th meeting, having considered the information and documents made available to them by the applicant’s representatives and the Court (see paragraph 11 above), adopted the following decision concerning the applicant’s disappearance: “The Deputies, Recalling the decisions adopted at their 1164th meeting (5-7 March 2013) (DH) and 1172nd meeting (4-6 June 2013) (DH) in the Garabayev group of cases against the Russian Federation, 1. noted with grave concern that a further incident involving allegations of kidnapping and illegal transfer of an applicant protected by an interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 has been reported, this time in the context of the Mamazhonov case; 3. consequently insisted again on the pressing need to adopt as of now measures to ensure an immediate and effective protection of the applicants in a similar situation against kidnappings and irregular removals from the national territory; 4. recalled in this context the letter sent by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation; 5. agreed that a draft interim resolution will be considered in the light of progress that would have been made, including the updated action plan submitted by the Russian authorities; this text will be circulated in the draft revised order of business of their 1179th meeting (24-26 September 2013) (DH).” 97. The Code of Criminal Procedure 2002 regulates proceedings concerning extradition to other States. A summary of the relevant provisions has been previously provided by the Court in the case of Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 71386/10, §§ 70-75, ECHR 2013). 98. Providing guidance to the national courts on dealing with extradition requests, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated in its Ruling no. 11 of 14 June 2012, with reference to Article 3 of the Convention, that extradition should be refused if there are serious reasons to believe that the person may be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting country. Extradition may also be refused if exceptional circumstances disclose that it may entail a danger to the person’s life and health on account of, among other things, his or her age or physical condition. Russian authorities dealing with an extradition case should examine whether there are reasons to believe that the person concerned may be sentenced to the death penalty, subjected to ill-treatment or persecuted because of his race, religious beliefs, nationality, ethnic or social origin or political opinions. The Supreme Court further stated that the courts should assess both the general situation in the requesting country and the personal circumstances of a person whose extradition is being sought. They should take into account the testimony of the person concerned and that of any witnesses, any assurances given by the requesting country, and information about the country provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, competent United Nations agencies and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 99. The relevant provisions of domestic and international law concerning the status of refugees have been previously provided by the Court in Savriddin Dzhurayev (ibid., § 92-99). 100. On 4 March 2013 the provisions of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2002, which regulates preliminary inquiries into the reports of a crime, were significantly amended. Every report of a crime must be accepted, verified and decided upon within three days (extended to ten or thirty days under certain circumstances) by an inquiry officer, inquiry agency, investigator or prosecutor. 101. Prior to the amendments, Article 144 § 1 had provided that the investigative authorities could proceed with their inquiry, with expert assistance or on their own, to carry out documentary verifications, checks, and the examination of documents, objects or dead bodies, and could issue compulsory orders for operational search activities. The amendments introduced in 2013 significantly broadened these powers, essentially equalising them with the powers afforded by a criminal investigation. The new inquiry methods include collecting statements and samples for comparative examinations, requesting documents and objects, seizing them, and ordering forensic expert examinations. 102. Newly introduced paragraph 1.1 of the Article essentially equalised the legal status, rights and obligations of people involved in a preliminary inquiry with those of people involved in a criminal investigation. The provision specifically mentions the right of a person not to incriminate himself, his spouse or close relatives, the right to be represented by legal counsel, and the right to appeal against the actions (or inaction) of investigative authorities. These people may be requested to respect the confidentiality of the proceedings, and their safety may be ensured in the manner prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. 103. New Section 1.2 of the Article states that the results of a preliminary inquiry may be used as evidence if they comply with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is specifically mentioned that after a criminal investigation has been formally initiated, the defence has a right to request an additional or repeat forensic expert examination, and that such a request must be granted. 104. A criminal investigation may be initiated by an investigator or prosecutor following a complaint by an individual or on the investigating authorities’ own initiative, where there are reasons to believe that a crime has been committed (Articles 146 and 147). 105. Decisions by an investigator or prosecutor refusing to institute criminal proceedings or terminating a case, and other orders and acts or omissions which may infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to restrict access to justice, may be appealed against to a district court, which is empowered to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions (Article 125). III. COUNCIL OF EUROPE TEXTS ON THE DUTY TO COOPERATE WITH THE COURT, THE RIGHT TO INDIVIDUAL PETITION AND INTERIM MEASURES 106. Subsequent to the resolutions adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly and Committee of Ministers on the duty to cooperate with the Court, the right to individual petition and interim measures, as presented in Savriddin Dzhurayev (cited above, §§ 108-20), three further relevant documents were adopted by the Council of Europe bodies. 107. The Committee of Ministers’ Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)200, concerning execution of the Court’s judgments in the Garabayev group of cases against the Russian Federation, was adopted on 26 September 2013 at the 1179th meeting of Ministers’ Deputies. It reads as follows: “The Committee of Ministers... Considering the cases decided by the Court, in which the latter found violations by the Russian Federation due to the applicants’ abductions and irregular transfers from the Russian Federation to States where the applicants face a real risk of torture and ill‑treatment, and in breach of an interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure; Recalling that given the number of communications received, including from the Court, relating to alleged similar incidents that have been reported, revealing an alarming and unprecedented situation, the Committee has been calling upon the Russian authorities to adopt as a matter of urgency special protective measures for applicants exposed to a risk of kidnapping and irregular transfer; Noting that the Russian authorities have taken a number of general measures to prevent abductions and illegal transfers from the Russian territory of persons in whose respect extradition requests were filed and the Court has indicated an interim measure under Rule 39 of its Rules; Deeply regretting that these measures do not appear to have been sufficient to address the need for urgent adoption of special preventive and protective measures that are effective; Deploring that to date, no reply has been received to the letter sent on 5 April 2013 by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to his Russian counterpart conveying the Committee’s serious concerns in view of the persistence of this situation and its repeated calls for the urgent adoption of such protective measures; Underlining that in its judgment in the Abdulkhakov case, the Court noted that “any extra-judicial transfer or extraordinary rendition, by its deliberate circumvention of due process, is an absolute negation of the rule of law and the values protected by the Convention”; Stressing that this situation has the most serious implications for the Russian domestic legal order, the effectiveness of the Convention system and the authority of the Court, CALLS UPON the Russian authorities to take further action to ensure compliance with the rule of law and with the obligations they have undertaken as a State party to the Convention, EXHORTS accordingly the authorities to further develop without further delay an appropriate mechanism tasked with both preventive and protective functions to ensure that applicants, in particular in respect of whom the Court has indicated an interim measure, benefit (following their release from detention) from immediate and effective protection against unlawful or irregular removal from the territory of Russia and the jurisdiction of the Russian courts.” 108. The Parliamentary Assembly’s Resolution 1991 (2014), entitled “Urgent need to deal with new failures to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights”, was adopted on 10 April 2014. It reads as follows: “Parliamentary Assembly 1. Recalling its Resolution 1571 (2007) on member States’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights and Resolution 1788 (2011) “Preventing harm to refugees and migrants in extradition and expulsion cases: Rule 39 indications by the European Court of Human Rights”, the Parliamentary Assembly stresses the importance of the right of individual application to the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”). The protection of this right is the purpose of individual measures indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, which are designed to prevent the creation of a fait accompli. 2. The Assembly considers any disrespect of legally binding measures ordered by the Court, such as interim measures indicated under Rule 39, as a clear disregard for the European system of protection of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, “the Convention”). 3. The Assembly therefore calls on all States Parties to the Convention to respect interim measures indicated by the Court and to provide it with all the information and evidence it requests. 4. The Assembly strongly condemns instances of outright violations by several States Parties to the Convention (Italy, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and Turkey) of the Court’s interim measures aimed at protecting applicants from extradition or deportation to countries where they would be at risk of, in particular, torture, as well as of the interim measures in relation to Russia’s military actions in Georgia (see Georgia v. Russia II). 5. The Assembly insists that international co-operation between law-enforcement bodies based on regional agreements, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, or on long-standing relations, must not violate a State Party’s binding commitments under the Convention. 6. The Assembly is therefore particularly concerned about the recent phenomenon, observed in the Russian Federation, of the temporary disappearance of applicants protected by interim measures and their subsequent reappearance in the country which had requested extradition. The clandestine methods used indicate that the authorities had to be aware of the illegality of such actions, which can be likened to the practice of “extraordinary renditions” repeatedly condemned by the Assembly. 7. The Assembly welcomes the increasing use, by the Court, of factual presumptions and the reversal of the burden of proof in dealing with refusals of States Parties to co-operate with it, which consist in their failure to provide full, frank and fair disclosure in response to requests by the Court for further information or evidence.” 109. Recommendation 2043 (2014) was adopted on 10 April 2014 by the Parliamentary Assembly on the basis of the above Resolution. It reads: “Parliamentary Assembly 1. The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution 1991 (2014) on the urgent need to deal with new failures to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights, to Resolution CM/Res(2010)25 of the Committee of Ministers on member States’ duty to respect and protect the right of individual application to the European Court of Human Rights, adopted as a response to Assembly Resolution 1571 (2007) on member States’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights, and to the Committee of Ministers’ decision regarding kidnappings and irregular removals from the national territory taken at its 1176th meeting on 10 July 2013. 2. The Assembly commends the Committee of Ministers for following up on a regular basis cases of non-respect of the interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights. 3. The Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to continue insisting on the effective investigation of any violations of the Court’s interim measures, in particular irregular removals from the national territory, and to require the States Parties concerned to hold to account the perpetrators of any illegal acts.” IV. COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS’ DECISIONS UNDER ARTICLE 46 ON RELATED CASES CONCERNING RUSSIA 110. In addition to the Committee of Ministers’ decisions under Article 46 in cases concerning Russia cited in Savriddin Dzhurayev (cited above, § 121-126) and their decision on the applicant’s disappearance (see paragraph 96 above), the Minister’s Deputies adopted the following decision on 4-6 March 2014 during their 1193rd meeting: “The Deputies 1. expressed serious concern that, according to the Court, the repetitive nature of the violations established suggests that certain authorities developed a practice in breach of their obligations under Russian law and the Convention; 2. also expressed serious concern that, notwithstanding their interim resolution of September 2013 and the measures already adopted by the Russian authorities, the Committee has been seized of a new incident concerning Mr Azimov, reported to have been abducted on 3 December 2013 from a temporary accommodation centre under the authority of the Federal Migration Service; 3. further expressed serious concern that the current whereabouts of Mr Azimov have not yet been established and therefore urged the Russian authorities to reinforce their investigation efforts and to continue to keep the Committee informed of all developments; 4. noted with interest the recent diplomatic efforts undertaken by the Russian authorities with respect to other applicants who were allegedly abducted and subsequently reappeared in detention in other countries and strongly encouraged them to continue their efforts with a view to ensuring that these applicants are not subjected to treatment in breach of the Convention; 5. concerning general measures, recalled the letter of 5 April 2013 by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs and their interim resolution of September 2013; while noting the updated action plan subsequently submitted by the Russian authorities, regretted the slow progress to date and therefore strongly urged the Russian authorities to: provide information promptly on how they will ensure the practical implementation of the required protective and preventive mechanism (notably, as regards the application of protection measures available to victims and witnesses in criminal proceedings; the improvement of security guarantees in temporary accommodation centres; and providing assistance in the resettlement to third countries where there is no risk of treatment contrary to the European Convention); transmit further details on the measures aimed at improving the efficiency of investigations, in particular how they will ensure close scrutiny of these investigations at an appropriate official level as well as on the recent initiative of the Prosecutor General’s Office to put under special control the rapid reaction of prosecutors in the face of detected attempts of abductions from the territory of the Russian Federation; 111. On 5 June 2014 during the 1201st meeting of the Minister’s Deputies, the following decision was adopted: “The Deputies 1. noted with grave concern that yet another applicant in this group of cases, Mr Yakubov, had allegedly been abducted in Moscow in April 2014 despite the repeated calls by the Committee of Ministers on the Russian authorities to take the necessary measures to prevent such incidents (see, in particular, Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)200); 2. urged the Russian authorities to continue their investigation into Mr Yakubov’s disappearance in order to shed light on the circumstances of this incident, taking into account the findings of the European Court of Human Rights as regards the involvement of the State authorities in other cases, notably in the case of Savriddin Dzhurayev; 3. noted, with concern, that this incident casts doubts on the soundness of the preventive and protective arrangements set up by the Russian authorities in response to the Committee’s call in September 2013, and requested, in this context, the Russian authorities to ensure that relevant individuals are informed of the protective measures available; 4. further noted, with concern, that no information about any progress in the investigations into similar previous incidents in this group of cases has been provided; 5. invited the Russian authorities to provide information on the different issues raised in this group of cases in good time for their 1208th meeting (September 2014) (DH).” 112. The relevant reports by the UN agencies and international NGOs on the situation in Uzbekistan during the period 2002 to 2011 are summarised in the case of Zokhidov v. Russia (no. 67286/10, §§ 107-13, 5 February 2013). 113. In January 2013 Human Rights Watch released its annual World Report for 2013. The chapter entitled “Uzbekistan”, in so far as relevant, reads: “Criminal Justice, Torture, and Ill-Treatment Torture remains rampant and continues to occur with near-total impunity. Detainees’ rights are violated at each stage of investigations and trials, despite habeas corpus amendments passed in 2008. The government has failed to meaningfully implement recommendations to combat torture made by the UN special rapporteur in 2003 and other international bodies. Suspects are not permitted access to lawyers, a critical safeguard against torture in pre-trial detention. Police coerce confessions from detainees using torture, including beatings with batons and plastic bottles, hanging by the wrists and ankles, rape, and sexual humiliation. Authorities routinely refuse to investigate allegations of abuse ... Human Rights Watch continues to receive regular and credible reports of torture, including suspicious deaths in custody in pre-trial and post-conviction detention. Freedom of Religion Although Uzbekistan’s Constitution ensures freedom of religion, authorities continued their multi-year campaign of arbitrary detention, arrest, and torture of Muslims who practice their faith outside state controls. Over 200 were arrested or convicted in 2012 on charges related to religious extremism.” 114. The chapter on Uzbekistan in Amnesty International’s 2013 annual report released in May 2013 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Torture and other ill-treatment Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners by security forces and prison personnel continued to be routine. Scores of reports of torture and other ill‑treatment emerged during the year, especially from men and women suspected or convicted of belonging to Islamic movements and Islamist groups and parties or other religious groups, banned in Uzbekistan. As in previous years, the authorities failed to conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into such reports and into complaints lodged with the Prosecutor General’s Office... Counter-terror and security The authorities continued to seek the extradition of suspected members of Islamic movements and Islamist groups and parties banned in Uzbekistan in the name of security and the fight against terrorism. They also requested the extradition of political opponents, government critics and wealthy individuals out of favour with the regime. Many of these extradition requests were based on fabricated or unreliable evidence. The government offered diplomatic assurances to sending states to secure the returns, pledging free access to detention centres for independent monitors and diplomats. In practice, they did not honour these guarantees. Those forcibly returned to Uzbekistan faced incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment and, after unfair trials, long prison sentences in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions. The authorities were also accused of attempting assassinations of political opponents living abroad.” 115. In its 2013 report “Return to Torture: Extradition, Forcible Returns and Removals to Central Asia”, Amnesty International stated as follows: “Over the past two decades thousands of people across the region have alleged that they have been arbitrarily detained and tortured or ill-treated in custody in order to extract a forced confession or money from relatives. In this period, piecemeal reforms have been introduced in most Central Asia countries with the aim of strengthening the accountability of law enforcement agencies and improving the protection available in the criminal justice system. Nowhere, however, have they had any significant success in eliminating the practices of torture and other ill‑treatment that are often used in relation to people suspected of ordinary crimes, and routinely used in relation to political opponents and individuals suspected of involvement in extremism and terrorism-related activities or in banned religious groups. ... ... Detainees are often tortured and ill-treated while being held incommunicado for initial interrogations. Those detained in closed detention facilities run by National Security Services on charges related to national security or ‘religious extremism’ are at particular risk of torture and other ill-treatment.”

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1961. When lodging his application, he was detained in Hagen Prison. He was released on 12 July 2011. 6. On 18 October 2007 the Aachen District Court authorised criminal investigations against S. and five other persons (not including the applicant) to be conducted by up to five undercover police officers, in accordance with Article 110a § 1 no. 1 and Article 110b § 2 no. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 24-25 below). Criminal investigation proceedings on suspicion of drug trafficking had previously been instituted against the six suspects. Prior to the District Court’s order, the police’s suspicion against the suspects had been confirmed, in particular, by information obtained via telephone tapping and police surveillance of the suspects. 7. The police decided to attempt to establish contacts between S. and the undercover agents via the applicant, a good friend of S. and business partner for real estate transactions. The applicant, who had no criminal record, was not, at that time, suspected of any involvement in drug trafficking. 8. From 16 November 2007 onwards, two undercover police officers, P. and D., established contacts with the applicant. They visited him in the restaurant he ran and pretended to be interested in purchasing real property for running a club. In the following weeks the applicant made a number of offers of real property to the undercover agents and visited the estates with them. 9. The applicant subsequently established contacts between the two undercover agents and S. for organising an international contraband trade in cigarettes after one of the undercover agents had pretended to have a suitable lorry at hand for transporting the cigarettes abroad. S. refused, however, to communicate directly with undercover agent P. by telephone and proposed to further communicate via the applicant. When undercover agent D. disclosed to the applicant on 23 January 2008 that he considered that the risk of being caught with smuggling cigarettes was too high compared to the possible profits, the applicant disclosed that they (that is, S. and others and himself) would also traffic in cocaine and amphetamine. He stated that he did not want to be involved in the drug trafficking itself, but would only draw commissions. The undercover agents showed interest in transporting and purchasing drugs. 10. However, on 1 February 2008 the applicant, having been telephoned by undercover agent P., explained to P. that he was no longer interested in any business other than the restaurant he ran. 11. On 7 February 2008 the Aachen District Court, having regard to the applicant’s submissions to undercover agent D. on 23 January 2008, extended the court order of 18 October 2007 authorising investigations so as to cover also the applicant. 12. On 8 February 2008 undercover agent P. visited the applicant in his restaurant and dispersed the applicant’s suspicions against the undercover agents as well as his fear of having to serve a prison sentence in case the drug deal was discovered. The applicant thereupon continued arranging two purchases of drugs (cocaine and amphetamine) by the undercover agents from S. on 16 February 2008 (10 kilograms of amphetamine paste and 40 grams of cocaine) and on 12 March 2008 (some 250 kilograms of amphetamine paste). On the latter day, the applicant and S. were arrested after the delivery of the drugs to the undercover agents. The applicant would have received a commission of more than EUR 50,000 from S. for having arranged the second contract between S. and the undercover agents. 13. On 22 October 2008 the Aachen Regional Court convicted the applicant of two counts of drug trafficking and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. 14. The Regional Court, having established the facts as described above (see paragraphs 6-12), noted that the applicant had confessed to the offences in the hearing. It had further read out in the hearing the written reports of undercover agents D. and P., drawn up throughout the undercover measure, with the consent of the parties. It noted that the applicant had accepted that these reports were essentially correct. It considered that the applicant’s allegation that it had been undercover agent D. and not himself who had first come up with the possibility of drug trafficking on 23 January 2008, and that he had only responded to that proposal, had not been proven. It noted in that context that the undercover agents had been careful throughout the investigations not to propose illegal business transactions or specific types or amounts of drugs first, but had waited for their respective counterparts to make the first step before becoming more concrete themselves. 15. In fixing the sentence, the Regional Court considered the considerable quantities of drugs trafficked as an aggravating factor. However, there were considerable elements leading to a mitigation of the sentence, which had to be considered as relatively mild in view of the amount of drugs trafficked. The applicant had in essence confessed to the offences and did not have any prior convictions. He had further trafficked mainly amphetamine, which was not a hard drug. In view of the undercover agents’ involvement, there had also not been a risk that the drugs would freely circulate on the market. 16. The Aachen Regional Court further stated that it was a particularly weighty factor mitigating the sentence that the applicant had been incited (verleitet) by a State authority to commit offences. Prior to the undercover measure concerning him, there had not been any suspicion of involvement in drug trafficking against the applicant, who did not have a criminal record. The police had only known that the applicant was a friend of S., against whom there had been strong suspicions of involvement in drug trafficking, and that the applicant had already arranged the sale of real estate together with S. The Regional Court considered that, nevertheless, the applicant had not been instigated (angestiftet) to commit the offences at issue. The undercover agents had waited for the applicant to raise the possibility of arranging an international contraband trade in cigarettes when the arrangement of a real estate transaction had not been successful. The agents had again waited for the applicant to raise the possibility of drug trafficking after the undercover agents had made him understand that they considered that the risk of being caught with smuggling cigarettes was too high compared to the possible profits. 17. Moreover, the Regional Court stressed that the applicant had then renounced any drug business on 1 February 2008 for fear of punishment. However, the undercover agents nevertheless contacted the applicant again on 8 February 2008, when the court order authorising recourse to undercover agents had been extended so as to cover also the applicant, and dispersed his doubts. The Regional Court considered that the way in which the undercover measure had been organised, that is, by contacting the applicant, a person not suspected of an offence, in order to establish contacts with suspect S., had entailed a risk, from the outset, that the applicant became implicated in drug trafficking. 18. The Regional Court further found that the applicant’s involvement in the offences had been less important than that of S., as he had only arranged contacts between S. and the undercover agents and had shielded off S. against them. The applicant obviously did not have any contacts with the drug scene apart from his contacts with S. 19. The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s judgment. He complained, in particular, that he had been incited by the police to commit the offences he had later been found guilty of. This had breached the rule of law. There was, therefore, a bar to the criminal proceedings against him, which should have been discontinued. 20. On 8 April 2009 the Federal Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as ill-founded. The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 20 April 2009. 21. On 12 May 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. Relying, inter alia, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on the corresponding provisions of the Basic Law, the applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial. He argued that the undercover agents had incited him to commit drug offences which he would not have committed otherwise. The use of the evidence obtained thereby in the criminal proceedings against him had rendered these proceedings unfair. 22. On 28 May 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Aachen Regional Court and the decision of the Federal Court of Justice without giving reasons (file no. 2 BvR 1029/09). The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 3 June 2009. 23. On 16 June 2011 the Aachen Regional Court ordered the applicant’s conditional release on 12 July 2011 after the applicant had served two thirds of his sentence.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Sokal Prison no. 47 in the Lviv region. 6. In February 2000 the applicant was detained on suspicion of several counts of robbery and a murder. He claimed that he had been beaten by the police. 7. On 13 September 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court (“the Zaporizhzhya Court”), sitting as a court of first instance, found the applicant guilty as charged. It sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder and considered that the prison terms for the other crimes were absorbed by the life sentence. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment as unsubstantiated. 8. On 21 December 2000 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment. 9. On 30 October 2009 the Supreme Court reviewed the applicant’s case under an extraordinary procedure and commuted his sentence to fifteen years’ imprisonment. It reasoned that life imprisonment had not been listed as a possible penalty in the Criminal Code on the date when the murder for which the applicant had been sentenced had been committed. 10. On 6 December 2001 the applicant was transferred to Vinnytsya Prison no. 1, which had a section for life prisoners, to serve his sentence. That prison is located some 700 kilometres from Zaporizhzhya, where the applicant had been living before his detention and where his mother lived. The train journey from Zaporizhzhya to Vinnytsya takes from twelve to sixteen hours. 11. On numerous occasions the applicant and his mother, Mrs Kapiton, who acted on his behalf as his representative under a power of attorney, asked the State Department of Ukraine for the Enforcement of Sentences (“the Prison Department”) to transfer the applicant to a prison closer to his home to make it easier for her to visit him. They drew attention, in particular, to the long travel time from Zaporizhzhya to Vinnytsya by public transport, which was very burdensome for Mrs Kapiton given her advanced age (born in 1938) and poor health (she had been officially certified “second-degree” (medium) disabled). 12. On 10 June and 15 September 2004 the Prison Department replied to the applicant’s mother that her request had been rejected, since “in accordance with the legislation in force, convicted prisoners must serve their entire sentence in the same prison”. 13. On 29 October 2004 Mrs Kapiton arrived at Vinnytsya Prison to visit the applicant. During the visit she fainted and was provided with medical assistance for low blood pressure. Her meeting with the applicant was not resumed once she had recovered, on the recommendation of a medical professional. 14. On many subsequent occasions Mrs Kapiton continued to contact various authorities on her own and the applicant’s behalf, requesting his transfer to a prison closer to his home to enable her to visit him. She always enclosed with her requests the medical certificate confirming her disability and her doctor’s advice not to travel outside the Zaporizhzhya region. 15. All Mrs Kapiton’s requests were rejected. On numerous occasions (on 2, 12 and 18 November 2004, and on 12 February, 21 and 24 March 2005) the Prison Department repeated its previous reasoning, referring to the legal requirement that prisoners must serve their entire prison term in the same establishment. 16. On 17 March 2006 the Prison Department informed the applicant’s mother that her request could not be granted because no places were available for life prisoners in establishments closer to Zaporizhzhya. 17. On 3 May 2006 the Prison Department wrote to the applicant’s mother again, informing her that the applicant was supposed to serve his entire sentence in the same prison and that, in any event, there were no places available in prisons closer to his home. 18. On 7 August 2006 the Prison Department further notified the applicant that, in accordance with unspecified regulations, persons convicted of aggravated murder were usually detained in prisons located outside the region in which the crime had been committed. 19. On 16 November 2006, 8 August 2007 and 24 March 2009 the Prison Department reiterated, in reply to the repeated requests of the applicant’s mother for his transfer, that “under the legislation in force, convicted prisoners must serve their entire sentence in the same prison”. 20. On 1 December 2009, following a review of the applicant’s sentence (see paragraph 9 above), the Prison Department’s regional commission on prisoner distribution, allocation and transfers examined his case. It decided that he would be held in a maximum-security prison, in ordinary accommodation. Pursuant to that decision, on 10 December 2009 he was transferred to Sokal Prison no. 47 (a maximum-security prison) located in the Lviv region, around 1,000 kilometres from Zaporizhzhya. The train journey from Zaporizhzhya to Lviv takes from nineteen to twenty-three hours. 21. On an unspecified date Mrs Kapiton complained to the Prison Department that that transfer was unfair, as Sokal Prison was even further away from the applicant’s home address. 22. On 17 February 2010 the administrative commission of Sokal Prison examined the applicant’s request that the level of security of his prison regime be reduced from high to medium security. It was noted that, under the Code on the Enforcement of Sentences, a prisoner could be transferred from a high to a medium-security prison if he had already served more than half of his sentence and if he had been manifesting good behaviour as an indication of his willingness to improve. However, the applicant had been disciplined eleven times and was not therefore eligible for such a transfer. Accordingly, his request was rejected. It remained open for him to challenge that decision before the regional commission of the Prison Department. 23. On 17 April 2010 the Prison Department’s regional commission on prisoner distribution, allocation and transfers rejected the applicant’s request for transfer to a prison in the Zaporizhzhya region. As noted in the minutes of its meeting, the applicant had been disciplined twelve times. 24. On 26 April 2010 the Prison Department further informed Mrs Kapiton that its appeal board had rejected the applicant’s request for transfer to a medium-security prison in the Zaporizhzhya region, and that decision would be reviewed only if his conduct improved. 25. The applicant’s mother then requested the applicant’s transfer to a prison in the Donetsk or Lugansk region (neighbouring the Zaporizhzhya region). 26. On 17 November 2010 the Prison Department appeal board rejected her request. As noted in its meeting report, the applicant had been disciplined fifteen times and had received no incentives. 27. The applicant suffers from ingrowing eyelashes of the left eye, which have to be removed periodically. His mother made a general allegation, without providing any factual details, that he had been hit in his left eye following his arrival at Vinnytsya Prison. No further information is available as to the duration and origin of the above-mentioned condition. 28. As regards the medical treatment for the ingrowing eyelashes, the applicant’s submissions to the Court were limited to his mother’s general statement, which she had made on two occasions, in November 2005 and April 2010, that the responsibility for the condition lay with the authorities and that, although the ingrowing eyelashes were regularly removed, the applicant felt pain and discomfort in his left eye. 29. On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant’s mother complained to the prosecutor’s office that the applicant’s eye problem was connected to his alleged beating by prison guards following his arrival at the prison in 2001. 30. On 5 and 25 April 2005 the Vinnytsya Prosecutor’s Office responded that there was no basis for launching a criminal inquiry into that complaint. In particular, the applicant had not requested a medical examination or assistance on account of any injuries inflicted on him. Furthermore, according to the testimony of other prisoners who had arrived at the prison together with the applicant, they had not experienced or witnessed any beatings. The prosecutor also noted that the applicant’s condition was under constant medical supervision. In particular, he had his ingrowing eyelashes removed by a qualified ophthalmologist on a regular basis. No other health-related complaints had been recorded. 31. According to extracts from the applicant’s medical file provided by the Government, the applicant had had his ingrowing eyelashes removed on 21 January, 26 March, 9 July and 13 December 2004, as well as on 1 August 2005 and 4 January 2008. Furthermore, on 30 June 2010 and 6 April 2012 he had refused medical examinations and treatment. 32. The applicant and his mother, acting on his behalf, complained to the prosecution authorities and the Prison Department about the routine monitoring of his correspondence by the prison administration. 33. The prosecutor’s response was that the applicant’s correspondence was subject to monitoring under the legislation in force; however, there had been no instances of withholding letters or seizing objects which the prisoners were allowed to keep. 34. On 7 July 2003 the Vinnytsya Regional Prison Department wrote to the applicant’s mother, in reply to her complaint regarding, in particular, the interference with his correspondence, that on 11, 16 and 23 April 2003 the prison administration had “withheld some letters written by [the applicant], because their content did not comply with the requirements of the Instruction on Review of Prisoners’ Correspondence”. 35. On 3 October 2006 the Prison Department informed the applicant’s mother that no correspondence had been withheld from the applicant and that since the beginning of the year he had sent fifty-one letters and had received twenty-four recommended letters and thirty-eight standard letters. There had been no complaints from the applicant himself regarding his correspondence. 36. On 14 November 2006 the applicant made a written statement that he had no complaints against the prison administration. 37. On 21 November 2006 the Vinnytsya Regional Prosecutor’s Office wrote to the applicant’s mother informing her that the applicant had sent fifty-six letters, had received seventy-two letters, and that he had had fifteen paid telephone conversations. 38. On 12 May 2008 the applicant made a written statement that he had no complaints concerning the work of the prison official in charge of the monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence. 39. On 19 June 2008 the applicant asked the prison administration to allow him to make a telephone call on 24 June 2008 instead of a short-term private meeting to which he was entitled. According to a hand-written note on the request, apparently added by a prison official, the applicant’s last private meeting had been on 26 December 2007. 40. On 27 July 2009 the applicant asked the prison administration to allow him to make a telephone call on 3 August 2009. As noted on the request, he had last made a telephone call on 3 May 2009. 41. According to the official records, during the period from 16 August 2002 to 30 September 2009 the Vinnytsya prison administration dispatched sixty-nine letters from the applicant.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicants were born in 1943, 1937 and 1965 respectively and live in Skopje. 6. In 1950 two plots of land (former plots nos. 100 and 102) were confiscated from the late Mr K.S., the applicants’ predecessor, and a third person. The land was divided into several new plots, which were renumbered in accordance with the new land register (нов премер). A new plot, no. 2943/6, comprising both the former plots nos. 100 and 102, was created. Two separate sets of restitution proceedings concerning the former plots nos. 100 and 102 respectively – both including parts of plot no. 2943/6 – were instituted by ten individuals (“the claimants”) in respect of property confiscated from their predecessor and by the applicants in respect of property confiscated from Mr K.S. 7. On 7 December 2001 the claimants submitted a request to the Restitution Commission of the Ministry of Finance (“the Restitution Commission”) for the restitution of several plots (those comprising former plot no.100) – including part of plot no. 2943/6, the surface area of which was 2,260 sq. m. – that had been confiscated from their late predecessor. On 24 June 2002 the Restitution Commission granted the restitution claim in the relevant part and returned the relevant part of plot no. 2943/6 to the claimants. The restitution order was based on the report – dated 22 February 2002 – of an on-site examination carried out on 20 February 2002 by three representatives of the competent body within the Ministry of Finance. In the relevant part, the restitution order stated that: “...an on-site inspection of plots nos. 2943/3 and 2943/6 was carried out... and established that the land in question was undeveloped building land, but that preliminary construction work had been undertaken, the legal basis of which should be determined”. 8. The relevant parts of the report of 22 February 2002, which was submitted in the case-file, stated inter alia: “The former plot no. 100 comprised parts of new plots nos. 2943/3 and 2943/6 and 6798 on which preparatory construction work had begun: on the day the examination was carried out, the construction site was fenced off and initial digging had started ... According to cadastral records (катастарот на недвижности), plots nos. 2943/3 and 2943/6 are recorded in land register (имотен лист) no. 30165 as an orchard ... and as undeveloped building land belonging to (a company) G.D. Since preparatory construction work has begun on the site and there is no information as to its legal basis, we consider that the [Restitution Commission] should examine the circumstances in order to decide whether the land in question could be returned or not, given the fact that no buildings have been constructed on the plot.” 9. After the restitution order had become final, the public prosecutor and the Solicitor General (Јавен Правобранител) requested that the Government Appeal Commission (“the Appeal Commission”) declare it null and void (барање за огласување ништовно) in the part concerning plots nos. 2943/3 and 2943/6. On 20 November 2003 the Appeal Commission granted the requests, finding that plot no. 2943/6 could not be returned to the claimants since 1) a building permit for the construction of a petrol station had been issued on 16 May 2001 (it became final on 2 June 2001), namely, before the restitution claim was submitted and 2) according to an on-site examination carried out on 22 February 2002, construction work had started on the plot in question. 10. On 5 November 2004 the Supreme Court, relying on sections 20 and 72 of the Restitution Act (see paragraphs 26 and 32 below) quashed the Appeal Commission’s decision, stating inter alia: “... since the entry into force of the Restitution Act, no changes of fact or law regarding a property are allowed. In practical terms this means that since the entry into force of the Restitution Act, a property subject to restitution cannot be disposed of, no construction work can be carried out on it ... and no decisions conferring rights on third persons can be made in respect of that property ... the only legal issue of relevance for the merits of a restitution claim is the state of the property, actual and legal, at the time when the Restitution Act entered into force. Any changes, in fact or law, to that property made after the entry into force of the Act are irrelevant ...” 11. Consequently, the court found it irrelevant that the building permit for the construction of a petrol station pre-dated the claimants’ restitution claim. It ruled that the relevant part of plot no. 2943/6 should therefore be restored into the claimants’ possession since it was undeveloped when the Restitution Act entered into force. It remained undeveloped after the restitution claim was submitted (7 December 2001), as was clear from the on-site examination report of 22 February 2002. In such circumstances, the court held that the plot had been correctly returned to the claimants, under section 28(2) of the Restitution Act (see paragraph 28 below). 12. The public prosecutor challenged this decision by means of a request for a review of its legality (барање за заштита на законитоста). On 12 December 2005 the plenary session (општата седница) of the Supreme Court dismissed the public prosecutor’s request and upheld the judgment of 5 November 2004, stating inter alia: “... the court correctly held that the construction work noted in the on-site examination report of 22 February 2002 does not signify that the plot in question constituted developed building land within the meaning of the Building Land Act ... Consequently, having regard to the date of entry into force of the Restitution Act and the fact that the plot in question was undeveloped, the court correctly decided that there were legal grounds for title to the plot in question to be restored under section 20 of the Restitution Act ...” 13. On 16 May 2006 the Appeal Commission again declared the restitution order of 24 June 2002 null and void. On 22 December 2006 the Supreme Court quashed this decision again, instructing the administrative body to comply with its judgment. 14. On 22 March 2007 the Appeal Commission refused the requests of the public prosecutor and the Solicitor General for the restitution order of 24 June 2002 to be declared null and void. On 27 March 2008 the Administrative Court (Управен суд), which, under newly adopted legislation, had become competent to decide such issues, dismissed an appeal on points of law submitted by the Solicitor General (тужба за управен спор). The court endorsed the reasoning given in the Supreme Court’s judgment of 5 November 2004. Referring to the preparatory construction work indicated in the on-site examination report of 22 February 2002, it also stated that any further construction work on the plot in question had been carried out contrary to section 72 of the Restitution Act. 15. On 6 March 2002 the applicants requested the restoration of former plot no. 102, which included part of plot no. 2943/6, confiscated from the late Mr K.S. (the surface area of this part was 1,449 sq. m). 16. On 27 December 2003 the Restitution Commission delivered a partial decision (делумно решение) by virtue of which the undeveloped plots were returned to the applicants and compensation was awarded for the plots which had meanwhile been developed. It also ruled that a separate decision would be given concerning the relevant part of plot no. 2943/6. As indicated in this decision, it replaced a decision of 9 September 2003 in which the Restitution Commission had, inter alia, restored the relevant part of plot no. 2943/6 to the applicants (this latter decision, which was not submitted by the parties, was set aside by the Appeal Commission upon an appeal by the Solicitor General). 17. In its decision of 27 December 2003, the Restitution Commission further referred to a report issued by the State Geodetic Institute (Државен Завод за геодетски работи) on 5 August 2002 at the request of the Ministry of Finance. In the report the State Geodetic Institute identified, on the basis of an on-site examination carried out in the presence of a representative of the Restitution Commission, the plots of land under the new land register that comprised the former plot no. 102. Given the plots of land that are referred to in the report, it is obvious that it was issued in connection with the applicants’ restitution claim. The relevant parts of this report stated that: “According to cadastral records ... Plots nos. 2943/3 and 2943/6 are recorded in land register no. 30165 as follows: plot no. 2943/3 as orchards ... and plot no. 2943/6 as undeveloped building land, the total surface area of which was 3,970 sq. m., belonging to G.D.” 18. The Restitution Commission also referred to an examination carried out on-site on 10 December 2003 (the report of which was not submitted in evidence) according to which petrol tanks had been installed on the relevant part of plot no. 2943/6 (вкопани цистерни за гориво). The Commission also quoted a letter of 22 December 2003 in which the Ministry of Transport and Communications confirmed that proceedings for obtaining documents relevant to the construction work on plot no. 2943/6 were still pending. Given the fact that the administrative proceedings for obtaining documents for the construction work were pending, the Restitution Commission ruled that the applicants’ claim regarding the relevant part of plot no. 2943/6 would be decided by means of a separate decision. This decision became final on 26 February 2004. 19. On 3 March 2004 the Restitution Commission granted the applicants’ restitution claim concerning the relevant part of plot no. 2943/6 and awarded them monetary compensation in State bonds. Relying on an “additional on-site examination” (дополнителен увид на лице место) of 10 December 2003, the Restitution Commission found that the relevant part of plot no. 2943/6 had been developed, namely that part of a petrol station had been built on it. 20. The applicants appealed against this decision, arguing that the Restitution Commission had erred regarding both the facts and the law, that it had based its decision on the on-site inspection report of 10 December 2003, and that it had not provided any evidence regarding the timing or legality of the construction of the petrol station. They further argued that the plot in question had been disposed of contrary to section 72 of the Restitution Act (see paragraph 32 below). They claimed restoration of title to the relevant part of plot no. 2943/6, as was the case with the claimants who had obtained title to the remainder of that plot. In this connection they referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment of 5 November 2004 (see paragraph 10 above). 21. On 27 February 2006 the Appeal Commission dismissed the applicants’ appeal and confirmed the Restitution Commission’s decision of 3 March 2004. It found that the Restitution Commission had correctly established that the relevant land had been developed, as was apparent from the on-site examination report of 10 December 2003. The building permit for the construction of the petrol station of 16 May 2001 (upheld by the Supreme Court on 20 March 2003) was not to be considered a legal measure or unilateral declaration within the meaning of section 72 of the Restitution Act. It was a decision taken by a competent body at the request of a private company, which, as a user of an undeveloped plot of a State-owned land (корисник на градежно неизградено земјиште во државна сопственост), had the right to construct the petrol station in compliance with local urban planning rules. Referring to section 27(2) of the Restitution Act, the Appeal Commission found that the Restitution Commission had correctly applied sections 37 and 38 of the Restitution Act (see paragraphs 29 and 30 below). It stated that: “What needs to be examined is whether confiscated agricultural land (as in the present case) was undeveloped building land when the restitution claim was submitted but not when the Restitution Act entered into force. Both the impugned decision and the appeal confirm that the restitution claim was submitted on 6 March 2002 and that the building permit for the construction of the petrol station was dated 16 May 2001. [The applicants] neither suggest nor is there any evidence in the case file that the construction of the object had not started before the restitution claim was submitted. On the contrary, the on-site examination carried out by the Restitution Commission on 10 December 2003 confirms that part of a petrol station had been built on this construction land.” 22. The applicants challenged this decision by way of an appeal on points of law in which they argued that the plot in question had been undeveloped when they submitted the restitution claim. In this connection they referred to the on-site examination of 22 February 2002, which had been carried out only twelve days before their restitution claim. They further submitted in evidence copies of several letters that they had sent to the competent authorities and the investor requesting termination of the construction work pending the outcome of the restitution proceedings. They also submitted in evidence certain court judgments, on the basis of which the building permit of 16 May 2001 was no longer final. They further argued that in any event the fact that the building permit of 16 May 2001 pre-dated their restitution claim was irrelevant for the reasons advanced in the Supreme Court’s judgment of 5 November 2004. The applicants requested that the court follow, in their case, the Supreme and Administrative Courts’ judgments delivered in the restitution proceedings instituted by the claimants concerning the same plot (no. 2943/6), in order to ensure consistent application of the law. 23. On 26 June 2008 the adjudicating panel of the Administrative Court with the same composition as the panel that adopted the judgment of 27 March 2008 (see paragraph 14 above) dismissed the applicants’ appeal and ruled, for the same reasons advanced by the Appeal Commission, that the plot in question could not be restored into the applicants’ possession. This judgment was served on the applicants on 1 September 2008. 24. On 29 May 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ request for the proceedings to be reopened, finding that the judgment of 27 March 2008 had been delivered in a different set of proceedings and accordingly could not serve as a legal ground for a different decision in the applicants’ case. Furthermore, that judgment could not be regarded as new evidence.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Togliatti, in the Samara Region. 6. On 31 August 2004 the applicant was arrested in his flat on suspicion of drug-related offences after a “test purchase” of heroin, which involved his girlfriend, Ms P., acting on instructions from State agents, and which was supervised by the police. 7. During the arrest the police officers pushed the applicant to the floor and handcuffed him. After the arrest the applicant was taken to the police station. In his submission, he stated that he had been beaten up by officers R. and K. in the presence of their superior S. and other unspecified officers throughout the evening and night until 5 a.m. the next day. During the interrogations the applicant’s hands were allegedly attached to a radiator with handcuffs while the officers beat and kicked him. The applicant also alleged that a plastic bag had been put over his head to restrict his air supply; the officers subjected the applicant to insults and threatened to kill him if he refused to confess. 8. It remains unclear at precisely what time after his arrest the applicant was placed in the temporary detention facility of the Togliatti police department (“the IVS”). 9. On 1 September 2004 a medical certificate was issued confirming that the applicant had a chest injury. 10. On 2 September 2004 a judge authorised the applicant’s continued detention on suspicion of drug trafficking. 11. On 3 September 2004 the IVS personnel arranged for the applicant to be examined by a traumatologist. On the same date the traumatologist diagnosed the applicant with a closed rib fracture. 12. On 6 September 2004 the applicant complained to the Avtozavodskiy district prosecutor’s office of Togliatti (“the prosecutor’s office”) about his ill-treatment, first in Ms P.’s flat and then in the police station (his letters nos. 57/13-1116 and 57/13-1117). 13. On 13 September 2004 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office instituted a preliminary criminal inquiry. It was claimed that the applicant’s complaint had been received on 13 September 2004. 14. On 23 September 2004 the investigator from the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of any criminal event. The decision referred to the applicant’s account of events, according to which two police officers had beaten and kicked him repeatedly in his flat; to depositions by several police officers, who all claimed that the applicant had resisted arrest and had then been handcuffed but had not been beaten at any time; to statements by four of the applicant’s fellow inmates in the IVS, who submitted that the applicant “had not looked like someone with a broken rib”; and to the testimony of Ms P., who stated that the applicant had tried to jump out of the window during the arrest but had been handcuffed. The decision further referred to a registration log maintained by the IVS – in which it was stated that the applicant had arrived at the facility in good health but with an abrasion on his knee – and to the traumatologist’s examination of 3 September 2004 confirming that the applicant had had a rib fractured. The investigator concluded that the applicant had been injured “under unknown circumstances”. 15. On 11 December 2004 the Avtozavodskiy District Court of Togliatti (“the district court”) convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 Russian roubles. Despite a request from the applicant, the trial court confined its inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment after the arrest to the reading out of the investigator’s refusal to institute proceedings dated 23 September 2004. The applicant appealed against the trial judgment, seeking a reclassification of the charge and a reduction in the prison term. On 25 February 2005 the Samara Regional Court (“the regional court”) upheld the conviction. 16. On 24 March 2005 the deputy prosecutor of the Samara Region quashed the decision of 23 September 2004 and ordered an additional preliminary inquiry to be carried out. 17. On 16 April 2005 the same investigator from the prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. The decision reproduced verbatim the text of the decision of 23 September 2004 save for the results of the additional inquiry, which were as follows. A police officer who had not been present at the time of the applicant’s arrest had been questioned. Neither the applicant’s fellow inmates nor the two police officers who had formally registered the applicant’s arrival at the IVS had been questioned. The medical certificates confirming the chest injury and the rib fracture had been obtained. The applicant explained that the chest injury had been a result of his falling over in the street and the fracture had been caused by the beatings by the police officers. The medical experts had confirmed that the applicant had sustained minor bodily injuries. The investigator concluded that the applicant had “possibly sustained injuries during the period between 1 and 3 September 2004 under unknown circumstances”. 18. On 19 December 2005 the deputy prosecutor of the Samara Region quashed the decision of 16 April 2005 and ordered an additional inquiry to be carried out. 19. On 6 January 2006 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for the third time. The decision reproduced verbatim the one of 16 April 2005 and also included statements by two officers from the IVS – who claimed that upon his arrival to the facility the applicant had not made any complaints about his health – and statements from ex-girlfriends of four of the applicant’s former fellow inmates, who submitted that they had no information as to the whereabouts of those men. The investigator concluded that the applicant had “possibly sustained injuries during the period between 1 and 3 September 2004 in unknown circumstances or had possibly self‑inflicted them in order to avoid prosecution for the crime he had committed”. 20. On an unspecified date the decision of 6 January 2006 was quashed. 21. On 4 April 2007 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of any criminal event. The investigator considered – with reference to statements by officers K., R., S. and another officer M. – that the applicant had resisted lawful arrest following the “test purchase” on 31 August 2004 and that no physical force had been used except for handcuffing the applicant to prevent him resisting. The investigator also referred to statements made by the four IVS inmates questioned at the beginning of the inquiry in 2004. They affirmed that the applicant had told them about his resistance to the arrest. The investigator concluded that “the bodily injuries inflicted on the applicant had not been confirmed by anything except medical certificates and, owing to the objective impossibility of carrying out a forensic examination, it would be impossible to determine when and how the injuries had been caused”. 22. On 11 March 2008 the district court upheld the refusal of 4 April 2007 on judicial review. On 30 May 2008 the regional court upheld the first-instance decision. 23. On 28 August 2008 the Presidium of the Regional Court granted the applicant’s request for supervisory review of the judgment of 25 February 2005, reclassified the charge as an attempt to supply drugs, and reduced the sentence to six years and six months. 24. On 18 September 2009 the district court again examined the applicant’s complaint – under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure – concerning the refusal, dated 4 April 2007, to institute a criminal investigation, noted that the applicant himself had withdrawn the complaint in the course of the court hearing, and dismissed it. The decision explicitly stated that the applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged ill‑treatment had been received by the Samara regional prosecutor’s office on 6 September 2004. 25. In 2009 the applicant was conditionally released from prison.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chisinau, Moldova. 7. On 28 October 2006 the applicant married Ms E.P., also a national of Moldova. On 15 June 2007 she gave birth to their son, A.P. At some point relations between the couple deteriorated. As was established by the Moldovan courts in subsequent proceedings, on 24 June 2008 Ms E.P. moved to the town of Cahul, in Moldova, where her parents lived. The boy, A.P., went with her. 8. On 22 August 2008 Ms E.P. initiated divorce proceedings before the Rîșcani District Court of Chisinau. She also sought a residence order in her favour in respect of A.P. On 25 September 2008 the applicant filed a counterclaim seeking a residence order in his favour in respect of the child. 9. On 13 September 2008, while the proceedings were still pending, Ms E.P. left Moldova with the child and settled in Moscow, Russia. 10. On 1 October 2008 the court fixed a contact schedule, pursuant to which the applicant was to be allowed to visit his son. 11. On 10 October 2008 the applicant sought a court order prohibiting Ms E.P. from leaving the country with the child without his consent. On the same date the court granted the order sought by the applicant. An interim restraining order was issued with immediate effect. 12. On 28 October 2008 Ms E.P., by letter, informed the court and the police that she was opposed to any contact between the applicant and their son. Her letter was certified by a notary public in Moscow. 13. On 31 October 2008 Ms E.P. obtained a certificate of “temporary residence registration” with the Russian Immigration Authority in Moscow. In the following months she went through this process several times, obtaining such a certificate for the last time on 26 June 2009. 14. In the following months Ms E.P. did not take part in the proceedings before the Moldovan courts; however, she was represented by a lawyer. 15. On an unspecified date the applicant contacted the Moldovan police in order to establish the whereabouts of the child. According to a written reply from the police dated 10 March 2009 (which was apparently based on information provided by Ms E.P.’s parents), the applicant’s son was living with his mother at an address on Nag. Street in Moscow. 16. According to the applicant, on 27 April 2009 Ms E.P. returned to Moldova with the boy. During their stay in Moldova she allowed the applicant to see the child twice. During one of the visits Ms E.P. informed the applicant that she was living with a new partner, Mr A.G., in Moscow and that she had told her son that Mr A.G. was his father. 17. On 12 May 2009 Ms E.P. left for Russia again, taking the child with her. 18. On the same date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Russian police, seeking the institution of criminal proceedings against Ms E.P. for abduction of their child. A police officer of the Teplyi Stan Police Department questioned Ms E.P. and Mr A.G., and established that Ms E.P. was not preventing the applicant from seeing his son. The police officer concluded that the situation was within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and that there was no need for the criminal prosecution of Ms E.P. 19. The applicant contacted the Russian police and asked them to verify whether the child and the mother were in fact living at the address on Nag. Street. On 24 June 2009 and 29 December 2010 the Russian police informed the applicant that, according to their information, Ms E.P. and her son were not living at that address. 20. On 22 September 2009 the Rîșcani public prosecutor charged Ms E.P., in absentia, under Article 207 of the Criminal Code of Moldova. On the same date her name was put on Moldova’s wanted list by the police. 21. Ms E.P. was represented by two lawyers in the divorce and child residence proceedings before the Rîșcani District Court. According to a letter issued by the District Court, Ms E.P. was properly notified of the hearings, but failed to appear. 22. On 28 October 2009 the Rîșcani District Court decided the case in favour of the applicant. In its judgment the court analysed the child’s living conditions, the circumstances of separation of the parents, their respective home lives, income, occupation, social habits and so forth. The judgment was upheld at two levels of jurisdiction – on 28 January 2010 and, in the final instance (the Supreme Court of Justice), on 19 May 2010. The judgment of 28 October 2009, as upheld, dissolved the marriage and ordered that the boy’s habitual residence (domicile) for the purposes of his upbringing and education should be with his father (the applicant). 23. On 4 December 2009 the Russian police (Teplyi Stan Police Department) detained Ms E.P. in connection with the criminal proceedings which had been opened against her in Moldova, but she was released within a few hours. 24. On 18 June 2010 Ms E.P. married Mr A.G. in Moscow. For some time they lived together in Moscow at an address on Bak. Street. Ms E.P. enrolled the boy in a kindergarten situated in Moscow. She requested the kindergarten not to allow the applicant to see the child. The child was also registered with and started to receive treatment at one of the public polyclinics in Moscow. 25. On 12 May 2010 the applicant asked the Moscow City Court to issue a warrant of execution on the basis of the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28 October 2009. As per the Government’s explanations, the applicant lodged this request not directly, but through the Rîșcani District Court, which, in turn, forwarded it to the Ministry of Justice of Moldova. 26. On 4 June 2010 the Ministry of Justice of Moldova, with reference to the bilateral treaty between Moldova and Russia of 25 February 1993, asked the Russian Ministry of Justice to assist the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment of 28 October 2009. They informed the Russian Ministry of Justice that A.P. was living with his mother at an address on Bak. Street in Moscow. 27. It would appear that, subsequent to her marriage (see paragraph 24 above) to Mr A.G., a Russian national, Ms E.P. applied for Russian citizenship on the basis that her birthplace had been in Russia and she was married to a Russian national. 28. On 21 July 2010 the applicant’s application for a warrant of execution was received by the Moscow branch of the Russian Ministry of Justice. On 5 August 2010 that application, together with enclosed documents, was forwarded to the Moscow City Court. 29. On 10 September 2010 the Moscow City Court received the application together with the enclosed documents. 30. On 15 September 2010 a judge of the Moscow City Court refused to examine the validity of the judgment of 28 October 2009 for the purposes of enforcement on the territory of Russia. The judge held that, pursuant to the bilateral treaty between Moldova and Russia of 1993 and the Minsk Convention of 1993, such judgments were self-executing and did not need any further action in order to be enforced. In addition, the judgment of 28 October 2009 had not imposed on the defendant (Ms E.P.) any obligation to act or to refrain from acting in a particular way. The Moscow City Court concluded that it had no competence to examine the applicant’s application. 31. The decision of 15 September 2010 was forwarded to the applicant on 16 September 2010 by registered mail. According to the Government, it was received by the applicant in Moldova on 10 November 2010. 32. On the same date (on 16 September 2010), the documents enclosed by the applicant with his application for a warrant of execution were returned to him. As is apparent from the explanations of the Government, those documents were sent through the Moscow branch of the Ministry of Justice, which forwarded them to the federal Ministry of Justice, which, in turn, forwarded the documents to the Moldovan Ministry of Justice for further dispatch to the applicant. 33. Having received the decision of 15 September 2010, the applicant appealed. However, since by that time the time-limits for lodging an appeal had expired, he first introduced a motion with the Moscow City Court for waiver of the time-limit. 34. On 10 December 2010 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant’s motion and ruled that, in view of the applicant’s explanations, the time‑limit had to be waived. The appeal was consequently forwarded to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 35. On 1 February 2011 the ruling of 15 September 2010 was quashed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court’s interpretation of the Minsk Convention. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that the first-instance court was not in a position to conclude whether the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28 October 2009 did not require enforcement, as the materials of the case did not contain a “certified copy of that decision”. The case was remitted to the Moscow City Court for fresh examination. On 17 February 2011 the case file was forwarded from the Supreme Court to the Moscow City Court. 36. On an unspecified date Ms E.P. brought court proceedings before a Russian court seeking to obtain a residence order in respect of the child. 37. On 18 January 2011 the Cheremushki District Court of Moscow refused to consider her application, holding that the dispute had already been resolved by another court, namely the Rîșcani District Court. 38. On 23 February 2011 the applicant wrote a letter to the Moscow City Court in which he reiterated his original position and arguments and informed the court that Ms E.P. was continuing to live at an address on Bak. Street. 39. On 24 February and 17 March 2011 a judge of the Moscow City Court examined the case file and issued procedural rulings ordering additional evidence to be gathered. In particular, the judge decided to call Ms E.P. for a preliminary discussion concerning the case on 17 March 2011. On that date the judge set the case for an open hearing and ordered that the parties be notified. 40. The judge also invited the applicant to resubmit the package of documents he had previously submitted together with his first application of 12 May 2010 (letter of 25 February 2011, no. 3M-0061/2011). The judge indicated that those documents should reach the Moscow City Court before 17 March 2011. 41. On 3 March 2011 the Ministry of Justice of Russia received from the Ministry of Justice of Moldova a renewed application for a warrant of execution together with supporting documents. A cover letter by the Ministry of Justice of Moldova referred to the provisions of the Minsk Convention and was very similar to the first letter sent on 4 June 2010. The request contained forty pages of enclosures, consisting of court decisions by the Moldovan courts in the applicant’s case. 42. On an unspecified date the request by the Moldovan Ministry of Justice was forwarded by the federal Russian Ministry of Justice to its Moscow branch. 43. On 22 March 2011 the Moscow branch of the Ministry of Justice received the application and on 24 March 2011 forwarded it with the enclosed documents to the Moscow City Court. In a cover letter addressed to the President of the Moscow City Court, the Russian Ministry of Justice asked to be kept informed about the developments in the applicant’s case. According to the Government, application and the enclosed documents were only received by the Moscow City Court on 27 April 2011. 44. On 7 April 2011 the Moscow City Court, following the remittal of the case from the Supreme Court of Russia, re-examined the first application. Ms E.P. was present at the hearing. She argued that the original judgment of 28 October 2009 had been unlawful, as the Chisinau court had been incompetent to examine the dispute. She insisted that the applicant and the Moldovan courts had been perfectly aware of her moving to Russia with the child on 13 September 2008. She also argued that the Moldovan courts should not have examined the case, as only the courts of the country where the child and his resident parent or lawful guardian had established de facto residence were competent to hear such a case. According to Ms E.P., the Moldovan courts had based their jurisdiction on the “registration” (propiska) status of the child, whereas his de facto residence was in Russia, together with his mother. Ms E.P. also argued that she was working and was capable of taking proper care of her son in Moscow. 45. The Moscow City Court rejected the arguments made by Ms E.P. It ruled that the child (A.P.) was residing in Moscow on a temporary basis, as confirmed by the temporary registration certificates, and that his permanent place of residence was in Chisinau. Consequently, the Chisinau court had been competent, under the Minsk Convention and the bilateral treaty of 1993, to examine the matter. 46. Further, the Moscow City Court held that none of the reasons preventing enforcement of a foreign judicial decision stated in Article 55 of the Minsk Convention existed in the case at hand. The alleged “unlawfulness” of the judgment of the Rîșcani District Court under the Minsk Convention and the Civil Procedure Code did not prevent the Russian courts from issuing a warrant of execution. 47. As a result, the Moscow City court granted the application and ordered the enforcement of the judgment of 28 October 2009 on the territory of Russia. It stipulated that that judgment had ordered that the child reside, for the purposes of his upbringing and education, with his father. 48. Ms E.P. appealed. In her statement of appeal she developed the arguments she had put forward before the Moscow City Court. In particular, she referred to the provisions of Russian law on the legal status of foreigners which defined a foreigner’s place of “permanent residence” as the place where the foreigner lives permanently and lawfully for a significant amount of time. She also maintained that the enforcement of the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment would be contrary to the best interests of the child, as set forth in the 1989 UN Convention. In particular, she argued that the child did not remember the applicant and considered her new husband, Mr A.G., to be his father, and that returning him to the care of his biological father would endanger his psychological well-being and development. Ms E.P. claimed that the decision of the Moscow City Court had ignored her son’s best interests: in particular, she referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of Russia in the case of K., where the Russian courts had refused to enforce a decision of an Ukrainian court, finding that the children involved were living permanently on the territory of Russia and therefore only the Russian courts were competent to decide, on the basis of Russian law, the child residence dispute between the parents. 49. The applicant lodged a written memorandum in reply to the statement of appeal by Ms E.P. The applicant contested her argument concerning the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Moldovan courts in the child residence proceedings. He further insisted that Ms E.P.’s conduct had been immoral and harmful for the child. 50. On 13 July 2011 the Moscow City Court wrote a letter to the applicant explaining that on 27 April 2011 it had received a package of documents from the applicant. It appears that this was the same package which the applicant had previously submitted together with his first application for a warrant of execution (that of 12 May 2010), which had later been returned to him by the Moscow City Court on 16 September 2011, and which the Moscow City Court had requested from him again on 25 February 2011. 51. On 7 June 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined Ms E.P.’s appeal. The hearing took place in presence of Ms E.P.; the applicant was absent from the hearing. She repeated her argument concerning the distinction between “registration” and “residence”, insisted that the Moldovan courts had misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the Minsk Convention, and asserted that they had lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Ms E.P. also referred to the provisions of Article 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”), which provided that a foreign judgment should not be executed on the territory of the Russian Federation if it could harm the sovereignty or security of the Russian Federation or if it was contrary to public policy. Ms E.P. claimed that separating a small child from his mother would be contrary to the public policy of the Russian Federation. 52. Following the hearing the Supreme Court quashed the Moscow City Court’s judgment of 7 April 2011. The Supreme Court found that the applicant had failed to follow the procedure established by the Minsk Convention. In particular, he had not submitted the following documents to the Russian courts: a certified copy of the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment, a letter from the Rîșcani District Court asking for the enforcement of the judgment on the territory of the Russian Federation, a statement by the judge that the judgment had not yet been enforced in Moldova, a confirmation by the same judge that Ms E.P. and her representative had been duly notified of the date and place of the hearing before the Rîșcani District Court, and, finally, a statement by the Rîșcani District Court that the judgment had entered into force. The Supreme Court also noted that the translations into Russian of the court documents submitted by the applicant had not been made. In such circumstances, the Moscow City Court should not have granted his application for a warrant of execution – instead, under Article 136 of the CCP the City Court was obliged to adjourn the proceedings and give the applicant the opportunity to submit the missing documents. The Supreme Court ordered that the case be remitted for fresh consideration. 53. On 1 August 2011 the case was received by a judge of the Moscow City Court. The judge ordered that Ms E.P. be summoned and that she provide details of the address she had stated when obtaining temporary registration in Moscow. 54. On 15 August 2011 the judge set 29 August 2011 as the date of the hearing of the case and ordered that Ms E.P.’s second husband, Mr A.G., be summoned. 55. On 16 June 2011 Ms E.P. left her second husband, Mr A.G., and took the child with her. Mr A.G. stated (see below) that he was aware that she had moved in with a new partner, but he did not know his name or where they were living. 56. On 4 July 2011 a police officer from the Teplyi Stan Police Station visited Mr A.G. and inquired about the whereabouts of A.P. On the next day a municipal council worker visited Mr A.G. and asked him the same question, but Mr A.G. was unable to give any specific information in response. It appears that by that time relations between Mr A.G. and Ms E.P. had seriously deteriorated and Mr A.G. was considering starting divorce proceedings. 57. On 15 July 2011 the applicant lodged a motion for interim measures with the Moscow City Court. He informed the court that Ms E.P. and Mr A.G. had split up, that she had taken the child with her, and that their whereabouts were unknown. He also alleged that her new partner was potentially violent and that he had previously threatened to beat up Mr A.G. The applicant claimed that in order to protect the child from the unpredictable behaviour of his mother and her new partner interim measures were needed. First, the applicant asked the court to obtain from the police details of the new address where Ms E.P. was living with the child. Second, the applicant sought an order prohibiting Ms E.P. from leaving Moscow and Russia without the applicant’s written consent. Third, the applicant asked the court to make a temporary residence order in respect of the child in his favour, pending the conclusion of the proceedings before the Moscow City Court. 58. On 25 July 2011 the Moscow police informed the applicant that the whereabouts of Ms E.P. and her son were unknown, and that a “search file” was open in respect of a minor, A.P., in the competent department of the police department for the South-West Administrative Circuit of Moscow. 59. On 27 July 2011 Mr A.G. wrote a letter to the Moscow City Court in which he supported the applicant’s claims. In particular, he insisted that Ms E.P. had manipulated him, and that by moving in with her new partner she had deprived the child of his adoptive father. 60. On 15 August 2011 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant’s motion applying for interim measures and dismissed it. The City Court held that the interim measures sought by the applicant (a prohibition on Ms E.P. leaving Russia and the grant of a temporary residence order in respect of the child) amounted, in essence, to two separate claims, which went beyond the scope of the enforcement proceedings initiated by the applicant. 61. On 29 August 2011 the Moscow City Court held a hearing, in the presence of Ms E.P. and Mr A.G. as a witness. The City Court heard both of them; in particular, Ms E.P. and Mr A.G. both related the story of their separation. Mr A.G.’s testimony was generally consonant with the position of the applicant; Ms E.P. denied the allegations of improper behaviour and blamed Mr A.G. for their separation. Ms E.P. also informed the court of her current actual address and place of formal registration (both were in Moscow). 62. On the same date (29 August 2011) the Moscow City Court decided to grant the applicant’s application for enforcement of the judgment of the Rîșcani District Court making a residence order in respect of the child. The City Court found that the applicant had submitted all necessary documents concerning the original judgments of the Moldovan courts, the proper notification of the defendant and the final character of those judgments. The City Court further established that none of the reasons preventing the execution of the foreign judgment stated by Article 412 of the CCP or Article 55 of the Minsk Convention were present in the case. In particular, the City Court dismissed the argument by Ms E.P. that the enforcement of the decision of the Rîșcani District Court in Russia would be contrary to “public policy”. The City Court noted that the concept of “public policy” was different from the notion of “national legislation”, and that it referred to the most basic rules by which society functions in economic and social terms and the foundations of the legal order established in the Russian Constitution. 63. Next, the Moscow City Court repeated its earlier argument that the mother and child’s “permanent place of residence” was to be determined on the basis of their place of registration, which was in Moldova. In Russia, Ms E.P. had temporary resident status and had changed her address several times. Furthermore, the child residence proceedings had been started by the applicant before Ms E.P. had moved from Moldova to Russia. The Moscow City Court concluded that the Moldovan courts had had jurisdiction in the child residence proceedings. As a result, the Moscow City Court issued an execution warrant (no. 002197065) ordering the enforcement of the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28 October 2009. 64. It appears that this judgment was not appealed against and thus entered into force. С. Position of the Bailiffs’ Service and its review by the courts 65. On 3 October 2011 execution warrant no. 002197065 was sent, by registered post, to the Bailiffs’ Service. 66. On 18 October 2011 the execution warrant issued by the Moscow City Court (No. 002197065) was received by the Bailiffs’ Service. 67. On 19 October 2011 the warrant was sent back to the Moscow City Court without execution. The bailiff to whom the warrant was entrusted decided that the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28 October 2009 was “not subject to enforcement”. As is evident from a letter from the Head of the Legal Department of the Bailiffs’ Service of 25 November 2011, the Bailiffs’ Service did not forward a copy of its decision not to institute enforcement proceedings to the applicant. 68. Having become aware of the decision, on an unspecified date the applicant asked the Bailiffs’ Service to review the case file they held concerning his case. However, those materials were allegedly destroyed during a fire that took place on 27‑28 December 2011 at the Cheremushki branch of the Bailiffs’ Service. 69. In the meantime the applicant learned, through his own enquiries, that Ms E.P. was living with another man, A. S.-O., at an address on Rok. Street. However, on 8 February 2012 the Social Security Department informed the applicant that Ms E.P. and A.P. were not living at the address on Rok. Street. According to the owner of the flat, the mother and the child had rented a room in that flat for several months but had then left without leaving any forwarding address. 70. On 18 April 2012 the Bailiffs’ Service wrote a letter to the Moldovan Embassy explaining the reasons for the non‑enforcement of execution warrant no. 002197065. According to the letter, “the judicial act [of the Moldovan courts] simply acknowledged the fact that the child was living with his father and, by its [very] nature, did not require enforcement action [to be taken], since the court ... did not establish an obligation on the respondent to perform certain actions or refrain from performing them. Similarly, the judicial act did not contain an order for removal of the child from the respondent’s [care] and his return to the plaintiff”. The Service recommended that the applicant file a new claim with the courts in Moldova in order to obtain an order specifically stating that such actions take place. 71. On 3 March 2012 the applicant filed a complaint with the Cheremushki District Court of Moscow of inaction on the part of the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking an injunction. 72. The District Court summoned Ms E.P., the applicant and the bailiff who had issued the impugned decision. The first hearing was held on 11 May 2012, but all of the parties summoned failed to appear, so the court adjourned the hearing to 1 June 2012. 73. The hearing of 1 June 2012 took place in presence of Ms E.P. and a representative of the Bailiffs’ Service. However, due to the failure of the applicant to appear, the case was adjourned to 21 June 2012. 74. On 4 June 2012 the applicant informed the court that he agreed to the examination of the case in his absence. 75. The new hearing took place on 21 June 2012. None of the parties were present, but the court decided to proceed with the examination of the case on the basis of the case file. The District Court granted the applicant’s claim that same day. It found that the execution warrant issued by the Moscow City Court, based on the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28 October 2009, was valid and enforceable on the territory of Russia. It further held that the decision of the bailiff not to start enforcement proceedings in this respect was unlawful. On 28 September 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal. 76. According to the Government, the bailiff concerned was not subjected to disciplinary action for his failure to enforce the execution warrant due to his dismissal from the civil service. 77. On 6 August 2012 the applicant wrote a letter to the Russian police, asking them to inform him of the whereabouts of his son and Ms E.P. As per the reply of the Cheremushki District Prosecutor of 27 August 2012, Ms E.P. was living with her son on Mezhd. Street in Moscow, while being formally registered at another address in Moscow. 78. On 21 September 2012 Ms E.P. was detained by the Russian police and questioned in relation to her immigration status. According to the authorities, her resident permit had expired on 18 September 2012. Ms E.P. confirmed that her residence permit had expired but explained that she was in the process of regularising her status. Her case was submitted to a judge, who decided to give her an administrative fine of 2,000 Roubles. 79. According to the applicant, on 12 June 2013 the Moldovan authorities instituted criminal proceedings again Ms E.P. for illegal crossing of the border. 80. On 3 October 2012 Ms E.P. and the applicant’s son left Moscow and crossed the Russia-Ukraine border through the Khomutovka checkpoint. Sometime later they arrived, via Ukraine, in Moldova. According to the respondent Government, the applicant was notified of this in April 2013 at the latest. 81. On an unspecified date in 2013, Ms E.P. met the applicant and handed their son over to him. Consequently, the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28 October 2009 was finally executed. In a letter to the Court of 22 July 2013 the applicant confirmed that information. 82. In 2010-2012 the applicant made numerous attempts to initiate criminal proceedings against Ms E.P. in Russia. His letters to the Russian prosecuting authorities led to numerous inquiries which concerned allegations of violence in respect of A.P., the immigration status of Ms E.P. and so forth. However, all of those inquiries were terminated, the investigative authorities having concluded that there was no case to answer. 83. Thus, on 23 March 2010 the General Prosecutor’s Office refused to extradite Ms E.P. to Moldova in connection with criminal proceedings which had been opened against her there. On several occasions the Russian police refused to institute criminal proceedings against Ms E.P. in Russia (decisions of 16 May 2009, 19 March 2010, 15 September 2011, and 1 February 2013). 84. The applicant also called on the Russian child welfare authorities at different levels – municipal, city and federal – to act on a number of occasions. According to the Government, the competent officials repeatedly tried to establish the whereabouts of Ms E.P. and the child, and inspect their living conditions. An inspection of 26 October 2011 assessed A.P.’s home environment and living conditions. On 24 May 2012 A.P. was personally examined by a child welfare board at his kindergarten; the board concluded that A.P. was not a victim of violence at home. 85. On 26 September 2011 the Rîșcani District Court, at the request of the applicant, rendered a new judgment whereby it ordered Ms E.P. to return the child, A.P., to the applicant. That judgment came into force on 27 June 2012. 86. In 2012 the applicant brought proceedings against the Russian Federation seeking compensation for the Bailiffs’ Service’s failure to enforce the warrant of execution of 29 August 2011. On 20 November 2012 the Moscow City Court returned this claim without examination. The Moscow City Court held that Law no. 68-FZ of 30 April 2010 did not give rise to liability on the part of the State for non-enforcement of judgments when the obligation on the defendant consisted of the return of a child to the custody of another parent. On 18 February 2013 the Moscow City Court, sitting as a court of appeal, upheld that decision. 87. On 23 April 2013 the Moscow City Court ordered that a duplicate of execution warrant no. 002197065 be issued. The Moscow City Court found that the original execution warrant had been destroyed in the fire at the Bailiffs’ Service’s premises on 28 December 2011. 88. On 27 June 2013 the Moscow City Court issued a duplicate warrant of execution in respect of the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 26 September 2011. On 15 May 2013 the Bailiffs’ Service opened enforcement proceedings on the basis of that warrant. 89. On 15 May 2013 the Bailiffs’ Service opened enforcement proceedings on the basis of the duplicate of warrant no. 002197065 (i.e. the warrant issued on 29 August 2011). On 20 May 2013, 19 June 2013, 18 July 2013, and on 1 August 2013 a bailiff visited some of the addresses where Ms E.P. had previously lived but did not find her there.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a sentence in Daugavgrīva Prison. 6. On 23 August 2010 criminal proceedings were initiated concerning a burglary. On 1 September 2010 they were joined to another set of proceedings concerning another burglary. 7. On 3 September 2010 the applicant was officially declared a suspect. 8. On 6 September 2010, following a request from the police, an investigating judge of the Daugavpils Court issued a warrant for his arrest and detention. The decision reads as follows: “The judge, having examined the case material, the arguments of the [investigative authority] and the attorney’s opinion, considers that the request is justified and should be granted. Section 241(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law sets out the grounds for the application of a procedural compulsory measure, namely a person’s resistance to the reaching of the aim of criminal proceedings in specific proceedings or to the performance of a separate procedural action, or non-execution or improper execution of his or her procedural duties. In accordance with section 272(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law a person may be detained only if specific factual information obtained in the course of criminal proceedings creates a reasonable suspicion that the person in question has committed a criminal offence, for which the law provides for a custodial sentence, and if no other preventive measure can ensure that they will not commit another criminal offence or obstruct or avoid the pre-trial proceedings, trial or execution of the sentence. Section 12(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that human rights may be restricted only in cases where such restriction is required for public safety reasons and according to the nature and danger of the criminal offence. On 3 September 2013 the [applicant] was declared a suspect of a criminal offence proscribed by section 175(3) of the Criminal Law. Information obtained in the course of criminal proceedings excludes reasonable doubt about his implication in a serious criminal offence. The only possible sanction for commission of this crime is a custodial sentence. It follows from the case material that the [applicant] has declared [to the domestic authorities] his place of residence as [address of Daugavgrīva Prison] in Daugavpils. The case material also contains [a document from another set of criminal proceedings] with [his] signature, whereby he undertakes an obligation to reside at [a particular address] in Daugavpils. On 25 August 2010 the [investigating authority] sent a notice to that address for the [applicant] to appear at a police station on 27 August 2010. On a copy of that notice the investigator has made a note that the [applicant] failed to appear at the allotted time and did not inform [anyone] about the reasons for his absence. On 2 September 2010 a decision was made to forcibly escort the [applicant] to the [investigating authority] on 3 September 2010, but [this decision] could not be executed since the [applicant] was not living at [that particular address]. Police officers verified on several occasions other possible places where the applicant might be, but it was impossible to find him or where he might be; this is evidenced by the police officers’ reports of 4 and 7 August 2010. Information has been obtained in the course of the criminal proceedings that the [applicant] is renting an apartment in the [name of a particular street] area of Daugavpils, but the specific address is unknown. In the circumstances, there are grounds to consider that the [applicant] is hiding and avoiding participation in the investigation, thereby resisting the reaching of the aim of the criminal proceedings and obstructing the normal course of the criminal proceedings and a speedy and fair resolution of issues arising from criminal law. Information obtained from the Penalty Register shows that the [applicant] has been tried on five occasions, [reference to various crimes, including burglary]. Taking into account the time spent in pre-trial detention, he has served the [custodial] sentence imposed and ... is currently [subject to an] additional penalty – police control. In the circumstances, there are reasonable grounds to consider that at liberty, the [applicant] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence. Taking into account the aforementioned, the judge concludes that the [investigating authority’s] request is justified and that the security measure [of] detention should be imposed on the [applicant], since imposition of another security measure could not prevent him from committing another criminal offence or from avoiding the investigation. Also, given that the [applicant’s] actual location is not known, it is necessary to issue a search warrant.” 9. The applicant was arrested on 9 September 2010. 10. On 27 September 2010 a judge of the Latgale Regional Court examined an appeal brought by the applicant and upheld the initial detention order. This decision reads as follows: “Having assessed the reasons mentioned in the [applicant’s] complaint and his request, having heard the explanations given during the hearing, having examined the case material of the procedural compulsory measures and of the [instant] case, [and] taking into account the opinion of the [investigative authority], I consider that the decision of the investigating judge of the Daugavpils Court, to impose on the [applicant] the security measure of detention, should be upheld. I exclude from the [6 September 2010] decision a note to the effect that the [applicant] was avoiding participation in the investigation. According to the available information...on 16 July 2010 the [applicant] was convicted of [various crimes, including burglary] and sentenced to six years and three months’ imprisonment, police control for two years and confiscation of property. Taking into account the time spent in pre-trial detention, he has served the [custodial] sentence imposed. That judgment took effect on 7 August 2010... There is no convincing evidence that [he] received the notice to appear [at the police station] or [other] procedural documents sent [to him]... The conclusion made by the investigating judge – that detention had to be ordered for the [applicant] – is correct, since specific factual information obtained in the course of the criminal proceedings has created a reasonable suspicion that he committed a crime proscribed by section 175(3) of the Criminal Law, [for which] the law provides for a custodial sentence. Imposing another security measure could not ensure that the [applicant] would not commit another criminal offence. These reasons correspond to section 272(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law. They are confirmed by the information available within the criminal proceedings. The [applicant] has been sentenced on several occasions for crimes against property. He has also served sentences in prison but he has not drawn the necessary conclusions and has not reformed. He is suspected of an analogous crime committed while under police control [in connection with his previous conviction]. These circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at liberty, the [applicant] could commit another criminal offence. The investigating judge has rightly concluded that imposition of another security measure could not prevent him from committing another criminal offence. The [applicant’s] detention is justified. The public safety (sabiedrības drošība) is more important than the liberty of an individual who is acting contrary to the interests of society.” 11. On 12 November 2010 the investigating judge of the Daugavpils Court carried out a bi-monthly review of the applicant’s detention and adopted a decision in that regard. It reads as follows: “Having heard the arguments of the [investigating authority], the [applicant’s] explanation and the attorney’s position and having examined the case material, the judge concludes that the security measure [of] detention imposed on the [applicant] should continue to be applied. The security measure [of] detention was imposed on the [applicant] to ensure public safety and to prevent other criminal offences being committed. The grounds for detention have not changed. The [applicant] is suspected of two burglaries...a serious crime for which the law only provides for a custodial sentence. Previously, the [applicant] was tried on six occasions; his last conviction on 16 July 2010 concerned [various crimes, including burglary] and he was sentenced to six years and three months’ imprisonment, police control for two years and confiscation of property. Taking into account the time spent in pre-trial detention, he has served the [custodial] sentence imposed and he is suspected of an analogous, serious crime while under police control [in connection with his previous conviction]; therefore, a possibility continues to exist that at liberty, he could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence, and the grounds for detention under section 272(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law have not disappeared. Pre-trial investigation continues within a reasonable time and there is no unjustified delay. It is not within the investigating judge’s competence to examine and assess the evidence obtained; therefore, the [applicant’s] submission – that the detention [order] should be lifted as there is no evidence of his guilt – is not substantiated. Besides, the [applicant’s] allegations that the [investigating authority] has ignored his requests and has not carried out additional questioning should not be taken into account as they contradict the case material. ... Section 277(6) of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that a person suspected of or charged with a crime may not be held in pre-trial detention for more than six months. The [applicant] has been detained since 9 September 2010, that is, for slightly more than two months. The time-limit for detention has not been exceeded. In the circumstances, the investigating judge considers that the [applicant’s] detention should be continued.” 12. On 9 December 2010 the applicant was officially charged with the two burglaries. On 20 December 2010 the pre-trial investigation was concluded and the case was forwarded for adjudication to the Daugavpils Court. 13. On 12 January 2011 another review of the applicant’s detention was carried out and he was retained in custody. 14. On 18 February 2011 the Daugavpils Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case, during which the applicant asked the court to change the security measure applied to him. In this respect, the court held as follows: “During the hearing, the [applicant] submitted a request that the security measure [applied to him] be changed as there is no evidence for his conviction; the gathering and verification of the necessary evidence requires more than six months, therefore his continued detention is not permitted. The [applicant] undertakes to attend all hearings. Having heard the [applicant’s] explanation [and the] opinions of the victim, attorney and prosecutor, the court considers that [his] request to change the security measure should be dismissed for the following reasons. In accordance with section 249(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law, if during the application of a procedural compulsory measure the grounds for the application of the measure disappear or change, or the provisions for the application of the measure or behaviour of the person change, or if other circumstances are ascertained that determined the choice of the compulsory measure, an [investigating authority] should take a decision to change or lift the measure. It follows from the wording of the decision of 6 September 2010 by the investigating judge of the Daugavpils Court that the [applicant] was detained because he was hiding and avoiding participation in the investigation... Besides, it has been ascertained that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that at liberty, the [applicant] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence. Taking into account that the [applicant] has been charged with a serious crime, that the grounds for detention have not disappeared or changed, that the conditions for its application have not changed, and that the legal requirements concerning the length of detention have been met, the court considers that the [applicant’s] request to change the security measure should be dismissed”. 15. The second trial hearing was held on 7 April 2011. The applicant once again requested a review of his continued detention. In this respect, the court held as follows: “During the hearing, the [applicant] submitted a request that the security measure [applied to him] be changed due to changes in the grounds for his detention and for application of the measure. The Latgale Regional Court excluded any reference that the [applicant] would avoid the investigation. Section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Law sets out the [types of evidence] allowing the suspicion that [a person has committed a criminal offence]. However, in the instant case there is no evidence for his conviction. The charges are not justified [as] the [applicant] has not admitted his guilt, therefore there is no reason to consider that he would continue to commit criminal offences...Detention can only be ordered with a view to preparing a judgment, but it is clear that judgment cannot be prepared for 9 September 2011 as all movements and escort (visas kustības un konvojēšanas) needs at least half a year, therefore his continued detention is of a punitive nature, which is prohibited by law. The [applicant] asks to be released, undertakes to attend all hearings and not to commit any offences. Having heard the [applicant’s] explanation [and the] opinions of the attorney and prosecutor, the court considers that his request to change the security measure should be dismissed for the following reasons. In accordance with section 249(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law, if during the application of a procedural compulsory measure, the grounds for the application of the measure disappear or change, or the provisions for the application of the measure or behaviour of the person change, or if other circumstances are ascertained that determined the choice of the compulsory measure, an [investigating authority] shall take a decision to change or lift the measure. It follows from the text of the decision of 6 September 2010 by the investigating judge of the Daugavpils Court that the [applicant] was detained because he was avoiding participation in the investigation... Besides, it has been ascertained that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that at liberty, the [applicant] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence. The [applicant] rightly points out that the Latgale Regional Court in its decision of 27 September 2010 excluded any reference to the grounds of the investigative judge’s decision that the [applicant] was avoiding participation in the investigation. However, the grounds for detention – the possibility that at liberty, the [applicant] could commit another criminal offence – have not changed. The [applicant] has been convicted on several occasions, most recently on 16 July 2010. In the instant case, he has been charged with crimes committed on 20 August 2010 and on the night of 22...August 2010; therefore, another security measure could not ensure that the [applicant] would not commit other criminal offences. The court has not yet started proceedings and, accordingly, [its] assessment of the evidence, therefore there is no reason to decide on the lack of evidence for the [applicant’s] conviction; this has to be done when preparing a judgment in the case. When applying detention, the investigating judge and judge of the appellate court found that specific factual information obtained in the criminal proceedings created a reasonable suspicion that the [applicant] had committed a crime proscribed by section 175(3) of the Criminal Law, for which the law imposes a custodial sentence. In the circumstances, it has to be concluded that the grounds for detention under section 272(1) have not disappeared. Taking into account that the [applicant] has been charged with a serious crime, that the grounds for detention have not disappeared or changed, that the conditions for its application have not changed, and that the legal requirements concerning the length of detention have been met, the court considers that the [applicant’s] request to change the security measure should be dismissed.” 16. During a hearing on 6 June 2011 the applicant’s request to be released from detention was rejected for almost identical reasons. 17. On 8 August 2011 the Daugavpils Court decided to release him from detention as the maximum legal length of pre-trial detention (twelve months) was approaching. 18. At the time the parties to the present case finished exchanging their observations, the criminal proceedings against the applicant had not yet been concluded.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The first applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Formigine (Italy). The second and third applicants were born in 2003 and 2004 respectively and apparently live with their mother in Budakeszi (Hungary) or somewhere nearby. 7. In June 2004 the first applicant’s then wife, whom he had married in 2002 and who is the mother of the second and third applicants, took the second and third applicants from Italy, where the family was living, to Hungary. 8. In August 2004 the first applicant travelled to Hungary. The family was supposed to return to Italy but the first applicant’s wife refused to leave and the first applicant returned to Italy alone. 9. In December 2004 the first applicant joined his family in Hungary for the Christmas holidays and his wife again refused to return to Italy with him and kept the children with her. 10. In February 2005 the first applicant wrote to his wife requesting that she return to Italy with their daughters. 11. On 3 March 2005 the first applicant asked the Italian Ministry of Justice to initiate proceedings for the return of the children to Italy. On 23 March 2005 he also instigated proceedings before the Court of Modena (Italy) for separation from his wife and the return of his daughters to Italy. 12. On 25 April 2005 his wife started parallel divorce proceedings before the Buda Surroundings District Court. 13. On 2 May 2012, the applicants lodged a complaint before the European Commission alleging a violation of Article 11 of the Council Regulation (EC) no. 2201 of 2003 concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and Matters of Parental Responsibility (“the EU Regulation on Recognition of Judgments”), which is still pending. 14. In 2011 the marriage between the first applicant and his ex-wife was annulled (see paragraph 26 below). As at the date of introduction of the present application, the first applicant had been unable to see his daughters since 2005. 15. On 25 August 2005 the Pest Central District Court found that the first applicant’s ex-wife was keeping the children in Hungary illegally, in violation of Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”). However, it considered that given their young age, the children needed to be cared for by their mother and therefore refused to order their return to Italy. 16. On 9 November 2005 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the decision of the Pest Central District Court and ordered that the children be returned to Italy by 10 December 2005 at the latest, but this failed to happen. 17. An enforcement order was issued against the first applicant’s ex-wife by the Buda Surroundings District Court on 26 April 2006 and upheld by the Pest County Regional Court on 5 September 2006. The decision was not enforced. 18. On 5 February 2007 the Buda Surroundings District Court ordered the enforcement of the decision of 9 November 2005, this time with the assistance of the police. Again, the decision was not enforced. 19. On 21 July 2010, following the issue of a European arrest warrant by the Italian authorities, the first applicant’s ex-wife was arrested by the Hungarian police but was released shortly thereafter with no progress having been made regarding a possible return of the second and third applicants to Italy. 20. On 14 October 2011, she was sentenced in absentia by the Buda Surroundings District Court to a 200-day fine for illegally changing the custody of a minor. 21. On 8 November 2012 the headmaster of Széchenyi István Primary School, located in Budakeszi, initiated proceedings before the Budakeszi district guardianship authority to bring the second and third applicants under its protection. 22. On an unspecified date, the first applicant and his ex-wife reached an agreement pursuant to which the second and third applicants would remain with their mother in Hungary but would be able to visit the first applicant in Italy several times per year. In the light of that agreement, on 19 February 2013 the first applicant requested the suspension of the enforcement proceedings against his ex-wife, and the Buda Surroundings District Court duly suspended the proceedings until 19 August 2013. 23. On 16 August 2013, the first applicant withdrew his enforcement request. 24. Following a proposal drafted by the competent Social and Child Welfare Service (HÍD Szociális és Gyermekjóléti Szolgálat) ‒ which was of the view that the children were no longer in danger ‒ the Buda Surroundings District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings. 25. On 28 November 2005, the Court of Modena granted exclusive custody of the children to the first applicant. 26. On an unknown date the Criminal Court of Modena sentenced the ex-wife to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended. 27. The marriage between the first applicant and his ex-wife was annulled by the ecclesiastical tribunal of the Umbria region, whose decision was granted exequatur by the Court of Appeal of Bologna on 18 July 2011. 28. On 4 October 2011, following an appeal by the prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Bologna sentenced the applicant’s ex-wife to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended. 29. The first applicant’s ex-wife appealed against her conviction before the Italian Court of Cassation. One month before the hearing the first applicant withdrew his criminal suit in the hope of appeasing the situation and allowing his ex-wife to travel freely to Italy with their two daughters. 30. On 30 November 2012 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Bologna in the light of the first applicant’s decision to withdraw his criminal suit.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Craiova. He was, at the time of the events, a lecturer at Craiova University. 6. On 8 September 2001 the local newspaper Republica Oltenia published an article entitled “Feature story on sex-blackmail professor” (“Poveste de lung metraj cu un professor de sex-şantaj”). The article, written by R.C., was illustrated by two photographs showing a man and a woman naked and having sex. The man’s face was not visible. On the photographs were the handwritten words “the man in the photos is Ion Cârstea, university as.[sistant] at the electrotechnical faculty”. One of the photographs also appeared at the top of the front page of the newspaper. 7. The article started by mentioning that the man in the photographs was a university professor, an important person in society, who was involved in bribery, blackmail, child sex abuse and sexual deviance, the details of which would be given in the article. 8. The article continued by stating that in 1992 the applicant’s students had complained to the university dean that he was not very friendly during sessions and used to demand money from them. The applicant was also branded as litigious, because he had three trials pending before the courts, two of them brought with the purpose of contesting decisions taken by his university superiors. 9. Further on, the article contained the following statements: Sex pervert, criminal, blackmailer In 1982 a girl, so young that she was not even eighteen, got pregnant. Abortion being illegal, she decided to ask her second cousin, a university assistant at the time, to help her find a doctor. The cousin took advantage of the girl’s desperate situation. He might have told her that he would tell her mother if she did not let him “taste” her at least once. The atmosphere at the time may be inferred from the black and white photos attached. They were taken ... by the cousin himself. Apparently, even from a young age, Ion Cârstea had unorthodox habits. After satisfying his needs, Cârstea remembered that in fact he could not help his cousin, and advised her to sell some jewellery in order to raise money for a doctor. To develop the photos, Cârstea appealed to a repeat student and amateur photographer ... “In your fourth or fifth year you will have an exam with me and won’t pass” Cârstea said, according to the photographer. The student gave in to the blackmail, but after developing only gave Cârstea 24 photos instead of 36. The gesture had its logic, because in 1990, when our student managed to proceed to the fifth year, Cârstea tried to raise the stakes, by asking for a non-reimbursable loan of 130 [German] marks to pass an exam. The student was upset and went to the prosecutor’s office: “I made a complaint to the prosecutor’s office in [19]90, accusing him of blackmail. I submitted the relevant evidence, namely the first [set of] photos, because he later came to me with six more films, also porn ... the prosecutor said that we were dealing with a university professor and should leave him alone, not amplify the case. Wax in the ears at the dean’s office Why not amplify the case? We’ll tell you: because between Cârstea and M.I., the University dean, there is a special relationship, which might also be based on blackmail ... We know that [M.]I. sold Cârstea a flat, but this doesn’t say much. That would be another case of blackmail, because we heard that Cârstea’s obsession with audio-video recordings remained unchanged ... As for the prosecutors who received a complaint from the blackmailed photographer, they were in no hurry to go to talk to the girl in the photos. That would have obliged them to open an investigation ex officio. Instead they sent the victim, the photographer-student, to take statements. And he obtained a statement signed by the girl’s mother, while the actress in the photos wrote on them “The man in the photo is Ion Cârstea, university as. [sistant] at the electrotechnical faculty.” Hello non-indictment! Of course such evidence obtained under these circumstances had no legal relevance. The case would normally be greeted with a gracious non-indictment. ... Our photographer can hardly wait for justice to be done and to finish his studies now, twelve years after he proceeded to the fifth year.” 10. On 6 November 2001 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Craiova District Court against the journalist R.C. and B.B.O., editor-in-chief of the newspaper, accusing them of defamation, an offence under Article 206 of the Criminal Code in force at the time. The applicant alleged that the facts described in the article were not true and that, together with the photographs, they had seriously damaged his reputation. In this connection, the applicant claimed from the two defendants 1 billion lei (RON) for non-pecuniary damage and RON 500,000,000 for pecuniary damage. As to the compensation for pecuniary damage the applicant alleged that owing to the publication of the article and the photographs in question he could no longer be promoted to a higher position within the university. 11. R.C. and B.B.O. did not appear before the court, although they had been summoned on several occasions. 12. Two witnesses for the applicant were heard by the court. M.G. stated that as far as he knew the applicant, the facts described in the article in dispute were not true. P.T. made a statement in support of the compensation claimed by the applicant for pecuniary damage. 13. On 27 June 2002 the Craiova District Court acquitted the two defendants. It decided that they had not intended to defame the applicant, since they had merely brought to the public’s attention certain facts mentioned by other people, with whom the applicant did not have a good relationship. With respect to the photographs complained about, the court briefly held that “... it is not clear from the photos whether the person photographed is or is not the injured party [the applicant]”. The court further rejected the applicant’s compensation claim, stating that there was no connection between the defendants’ acts and the damage alleged. 14. An appeal on points of law (recurs) brought by the applicant against this decision was allowed by the Dolj County Court on 31 October 2003. It ordered a retrial of the case, due to the fact that the two defendants had not been identified and heard by the lower court. 15. A search conducted by the police concluded that B.B.O. had written the article in question under the alias of R.C. B.B.O. did not appear before the court, although he had been summoned. 16. On 8 April 2005 the Craiova District Court acquitted B.B.O. and rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation. Quoting the Court’s case‑law on freedom of expression, the Craiova District Court held that the applicant was a public figure and was hence exposed to criticism. The court also held that the defendant had not intended to defame the applicant, as he had just published information that he had collected from other people, such as students, professors, and so on. It also held: “The publication of the compromising photos accompanied by comments concerning the actors’ identity is a shocking way of exercising the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention and Article 30 of the Romanian Constitution. ... Restricting the ability to publish documents because [they] might harm a person’s dignity would not be a necessary measure in a democratic society where the journalist’s sources were credible. As regards crimes against dignity committed through the media, a journalist’s investigation is always important and is based on direct and indirect sources, official documents and documents collected through leaked information, official and private statements, some confidential, not all free from doubt. What must be proved beyond any doubt is the journalist’s bad faith which, in the current case, has not been proved. The statements of witnesses M.G. and P.T., colleagues and friends of the applicant, with respect to his personality and professional reputation are credible, but strictly only prove the perception of these people.” The court analysed the applicant’s claim for compensation from the standpoint of Article 998 of the Civil Code and decided to reject the claim for non-pecuniary damage since the defendant’s guilt had not been proved, and the claim for pecuniary damage as unsubstantiated. 17. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision, alleging that the defendant had not been summoned at the correct address and that, in his absence, the judges could not have correctly established the facts or whether he had acted in good or bad faith. The applicant further submitted that B.B.O. had not acted in good faith. Firstly, because he had never contacted him for his version of the facts and secondly, because according to his criminal record attached to the file, the journalist had several previous convictions for slander and defamation. The applicant also alleged that the journalist had made accusations which attracted criminal sanctions, and therefore their truthfulness could and should have been verified by the courts. 18. On 11 November 2005 the Dolj County Court finally dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as ill-founded. The court held that, even though it may have been defamatory, having in mind the applicant’s profession and the media’s role in a democratic society, the article in question had just drawn attention to the behaviour of a public figure in the exercise of his functions. The court further held that the defendant journalist had wanted to “expose certain backstage games and interests in a higher education institution ... with a view to remedying the situation and maintaining good educational process”. The applicant’s specific reasons for appealing on points of law, such as the incorrect summoning and the failure to hear the defendant’s statement and verify the truthfulness of the allegations published by the defendant, were not analysed by the court.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Eastleigh. 6. The applicant adheres to a firmly held belief in the inoffensiveness of the human body. This has in turn given rise to a belief in social nudity, which he expresses by being naked in public. In 2003 he decided to walk naked from Land’s End in England to John O’Groats in Scotland, earning the nickname “the naked rambler”. 7. The following chronology is a summary of the details provided by the parties pertaining to the applicant’s arrests, prosecutions, convictions and sentences of imprisonment since July 2003. All arrests listed were the result of nudity in public unless otherwise indicated. (a) The first trek 2003/2004 8. The applicant began his trek at Land’s End in 2003. 9. He was arrested in Scotland on five occasions between 29 July 2003 and 18 August 2003 on charges of breach of the peace (see paragraphs 100‑102 below) and public indecency for being naked in public. No further action was taken in respect of the first two offences. He was released on bail in respect of the others but no further action was ultimately taken. 10. On 19 August 2003 he was arrested and detained for breach of the peace. He was released on bail on 26 August after agreeing to remain clothed. However, he was rearrested on 27 August on a charge of breach of the peace committed while on bail for being naked in public. On 3 October 2003 he was convicted at Dingwall Sheriff Court in respect of the 27 August offence and admonished. He was then released. He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons. 11. Meanwhile, on 3 October 2003 following his release, he was arrested and charged with breach of the peace committed while on bail. He was remanded in custody. On 7 November 2003 he was convicted at Dingwall Sheriff Court and sentence was deferred. On 28 November 2003 a sentence of three months’ imprisonment was imposed, backdated to the date of his arrest. He was released on 29 November 2003. 12. On the same day he was arrested and charged with breach of the peace committed while on bail. He was remanded in custody. Following a trial on 7 January 2004 he was convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, backdated to 1 December 2003. He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons. He was released on 15 January 2004 and resumed his trek. 13. All periods of detention were spent in HMP Inverness in segregation as the applicant refused to dress. 14. On 22 January 2004 the applicant completed his trek at John O’Groats and returned to his home in Eastleigh, England. (b) The second trek 2005/2006 15. In June 2005 the applicant commenced a second trek at Land’s End, intending to walk to John O’Groats. 16. On 1 September 2005 he was arrested in Scotland and charged with breach of the peace. He was detained on remand and convicted on 9 September. He was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment. He was released on 15 September 2005. 17. Upon leaving the prison, the applicant was arrested and charged with breach of the peace. He was released on bail. 18. On 20 September 2005 the applicant was arrested and charged with breach of the peace. He was released on bail. 19. On 3 October 2005 he was arrested and charged with breach of the peace and an offence under section 27(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (breach of bail conditions – see paragraph 103 below). He was detained on remand. On 21 October 2005 he was convicted in Dingwall Sheriff Court of a breach of bail conditions and sentenced to imprisonment for two months, the sentence being backdated to 4 October 2005. He was found not guilty of breach of the peace. 20. He was released on 3 November 2005 and immediately rearrested. He was charged with breach of the peace and a breach of bail conditions for being naked in public. On 15 November 2005 he appeared at Edinburgh Sheriff Court naked to be tried on the charges relating to the arrest on 3 November 2005. The Sheriff found the applicant to be in contempt of court and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment. 21. On 1 December 2005 it was decided that no further action would be taken in respect of the applicant’s arrest on 20 September 2005. 22. On 19 December 2005 the applicant appeared again for trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court but refused to wear clothes. The Sheriff again found the applicant to be in contempt and deferred the matter of sentence. 23. On 21 December 2005 the applicant was due to stand trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on the charges relating to the arrest on 15 September 2005. He refused to dress. The Sheriff found him to be in contempt of court. She adjourned the trial proceedings and deferred consideration of the matter of sentence for the contempt charge until 9 January 2006. 24. On 9 January 2006 the applicant’s plea of not guilty to the two outstanding breach of the peace charges was accepted. He was convicted of breaching of bail conditions and admonished. Sentence was further deferred in respect of the contempt findings and the applicant was released on bail on 10 January 2006. 25. On 12 February 2006 the applicant was arrested for breach of the peace. No further action was taken. 26. On 14 February 2006 the applicant was again arrested for breach of the peace. He was released on bail. 27. On 21 February 2006 he completed his trek at John O’Groats. 28. On 1 March 2006 he entered Edinburgh Sheriff Court naked to face proceedings related to the outstanding findings of contempt of court. He was arrested and charged with breach of the peace. 29. On 2 March 2006 he appeared on those charges before the Sheriff. He was found to be in contempt of court for appearing naked in court and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. He lodged an appeal against the sentence. 30. On 15 March 2006 it was decided that no further action would be taken in respect of the applicant’s arrest on 14 February 2006. 31. On 6 April 2006 the applicant was convicted of breach of the peace committed while on bail in respect of his nudity on 1 March 2006. He was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, backdated to 2 March. It appears that he was released on 14 April 2006 and returned home to Eastleigh. 32. All periods of detention except for a week from 16-23 November 2005 were spent in segregation in HMP Inverness and HMP Edinburgh because the applicant refused to wear clothes. (c) Detention from 2006-2009 33. On 18 May 2006, during a flight from Southampton to Edinburgh to attend the appeal hearing in respect of the sentence for contempt of court, the applicant removed his clothes. Upon arrival at Edinburgh airport, he was arrested for breach of the peace and public indecency committed while on bail. He was detained on remand. On 23 June 2006 he was convicted of the charges and sentenced to four months’ and two months’ imprisonment respectively, to run concurrently backdated to 19 May. He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons. He was released on 19 July 2006. 34. On the same day, he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace committed while on bail and detained on remand. He was convicted on 25 August 2006 and a seven-month prison sentence was imposed. He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons. He was released on 3 November 2006. 35. On the same day, he was arrested in the prison car park on a charge of breach of the peace committed while on bail. He was detained on remand. He appeared naked in court on 6 November 2006 and was found to be in contempt of court. A two-month sentence was imposed. On 13 December 2006 he was found guilty of breach of the peace in respect of the 3 November charge. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, backdated to 5 December. He was released on 5 March 2007. 36. Upon his release, he was rearrested on a charge of breach of the peace in the prison car park. He was detained on remand. On 9 April 2007 he was found not guilty of a charge of breach of the peace as the Sheriff was not persuaded that he had caused any alarm or disturbance. He was subsequently released. 37. On 10 April 2007 he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace and detained on remand. He was convicted on 9 May 2007 and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, backdated to 11 April. He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons. He was released on 25 May 2007. 38. On the same day, he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace committed while on bail and detained on remand. He was convicted on 25 June 2007 and sentenced to sixty days’ imprisonment, plus fourteen days outstanding from his previous sentence. He lodged an appeal; the outcome of the appeal is not known. He was released on 31 July 2007. 39. On the same day, he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace and detained on remand. He was convicted on 3 September 2007 and sentenced to sixty days’ imprisonment, plus twenty-three days outstanding from his previous sentence. He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons. He was released on 12 October 2007. 40. On the same day he was arrested and charged with breach of the peace. It appears that he was not held in custody. Three days later, on 15 October 2007, he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace and detained on remand. A decision was made to take no further action in respect of the 12 October arrest. 41. On 7 November 2007, while the applicant was on remand, his appeal against sentence for contempt of court was rejected by the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary (“the Appeal Court”). 42. On 15 November 2007 he was convicted in respect of the 15 October arrest. Sentence was deferred and the applicant remained in detention. 43. On 30 November 2007 the applicant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for contempt of court in respect of a contempt finding dating back to December 2005. 44. On 4 December 2007 the applicant was sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment in respect of each of the two outstanding contempt of court rulings, to run concurrently. 45. On 18 January 2008 the applicant appeared at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in respect of the deferred sentence for the 15 November 2007 conviction. Sentence was further deferred and the applicant was released. As he emerged from court naked, he was rearrested on a breach of the peace charge and detained on remand. On 26 February 2008 he was convicted and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons. He was released on 7 March 2008. 46. On the same day, he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace committed while on bail and detained on remand. He was convicted on 15 April 2008 and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. 47. On 23 April 2008 he was admonished in respect of the breach of the peace conviction of 15 November 2007. 48. On 14 October 2008 the applicant was released. He was arrested in the prison car park on a charge of breach of the peace and detained on remand. On 14 November 2008 the Sheriff ruled that there was no case to answer. 49. The applicant was released but was immediately rearrested on a charge of breach of the peace and detained on remand. On 18 December 2008 he was convicted at Glasgow Sheriff Court. He was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. 50. The applicant’s detention throughout this period was spent in HMP Edinburgh, HMP Barlinnie, HMP Glenochil and HMP Perth in segregation because he refused to put on clothes. 51. At around 7.45 a.m. on 18 June 2009 the applicant was released from HMP Perth. He walked out of the prison naked and was arrested, after refusing to get dressed when asked to do so by two police officers waiting some metres from the prison gates, on Edinburgh Road. He was charged in the following terms: “... [Y]ou ... did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner, did walk in a public place naked, refuse to wear any clothing when asked to do so, indicate that you had no intention of wearing any clothing when in public and did commit a breach of the peace.” 52. He pleaded not guilty and was detained in prison on remand in segregation as he refused to dress. (b) The trial proceedings 53. On 16 July 2009 the applicant’s trial took place at Perth Sheriff Court. He chose to remain naked and represented himself. He was asked by the Sheriff if he wished the services of a lawyer but replied that he did not. He maintained his plea of not guilty. The Sheriff indicated that he risked being found in contempt of court if he failed to put on clothes. The applicant refused to dress. The Sheriff allowed him to be present in court after a screen covering the lower half of his body was hastily constructed. (i) The evidence 54. The two police officers who had arrested the applicant gave evidence. Police Officer A described Edinburgh Road as a “major route into Perth” from the motorway. It was a “busy road” and at the material time there was a continuous flow of traffic along the road. He was firmly of the view that the applicant’s nudity in a public place would cause alarm to anyone. During cross-examination by the applicant, Police Officer A agreed that the human body was in itself decent and was not harmful or alarming. He accepted that nothing in the applicant’s behaviour at the time of his arrest, other than his nakedness, gave the police any cause for concern. Police Officer B gave evidence that she considered the fact that the applicant had no clothes on in a public place to be very strange and unusual and that she was “quite shocked” by it. She explained that at the time, Edinburgh Road had been very busy with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. She had previously seen elderly people and children in the area, and there were schools and housing nearby. In cross-examination she also agreed that the human body in itself was not harmful, indecent or bad but maintained that although she had been forewarned that she would be likely to see a naked man in public she had still been shocked. She confirmed that no complaints had been received from members of the public. 55. The applicant gave evidence in his defence. When asked by the prosecution why he was wearing no clothes, he replied that he was making a stand and that “we’re innocent until we do something wrong”. He did not believe that he was causing harm by not wearing clothes. He said that he did not wear clothes in order to provoke a reaction: although he had not always been like that, as he had grown older he had thought more about his beliefs. When asked what he hoped to achieve by making his stand, the applicant replied that he did it because he felt that it was right and that the world changed in its own way. (ii) The conviction and sentence 56. The Sheriff found the applicant guilty of breach of the peace and contempt of court. He considered that being naked in a public place and refusing to wear clothes in a public place was conduct that would be alarming and disturbing, in its context, to any reasonable person. In his stated case prepared in the context of the applicant’s later appeal, the Sheriff explained: “56. ... There was no dispute on the facts of the case ... I accepted that the police officers were concerned that if the appellant did not put clothes on there was a very real likelihood of him causing fear and alarm to other members of the public ...” 57. He continued: “58. The position of the appellant is somewhat difficult to understand. He made it clear to the two police officers that he had no intention whatsoever of putting clothes on. He insisted on being naked in a public place. He believed that he was doing no wrong by being naked in a public place. He did not accept that he had committed an offence.” 58. He noted that in questioning the police officers, the applicant had chosen not to differentiate between private and public places when it came to nakedness. He concluded: “60. I was entirely satisfied that the conduct of the appellant with the aggravation of his refusal to wear clothing in a public place amounted to a breach of the peace. The criteria for a breach of the peace as discussed in the case of Smith v. Donnelly had been met ... The evidence of the appellant did not raise a doubt in my mind. Accordingly I convicted the appellant as libelled.” 59. At sentencing, the Sheriff had before him the applicant’s previous convictions. According to the stated case, the applicant confirmed to the Sheriff that all previous convictions were for breach of the peace. The Sheriff’s stated case continued: “61. ... He acknowledged that he had spent the last five years or thereby in prison for the same offence. A pattern has emerged namely that on his release from prison when he ‘stepped out’ of the prison gate, always naked, he was immediately arrested. 62. I asked the appellant what he was hoping to achieve by insisting on being naked in public. He talked about ‘his beliefs’. I simply could not understand what he had to say in this regard. He did not appear to be waging any campaign or making a protest. He informed me that he would rather not be in prison. If he was not in prison, he would go back to live with his mother in a village in Cornwall. He had previously worked as a driver of large goods vehicles ...” 60. The Sheriff discussed sentencing options with the applicant. In his stated case he explained: “32. ... I enquired of him if I was minded to defer sentence for whatever reason and admit him to a bail order would he then wear clothes. After some thought the appellant stated that he would not be prepared to wear clothes ...” 61. The Sheriff’s stated case concluded: “63. Taking all these matters into account I could see no alternative to a custodial sentence. In view of the content of the Notice of Previous Convictions I deemed it appropriate to impose the maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment which I backdated to the date that he had been taken into custody.” 63. The applicant sought to appeal his conviction and sentence by way of note of appeal and a draft stated case was prepared by the Sheriff in September 2009. 64. The applicant was provided with a copy of the stated case and was asked for details of any proposed changes. By letter of 5 October 2009 the applicant proposed a number of changes. 65. On 12 October 2009 a hearing was held to consider the proposed adjustments to the case stated. The applicant was brought from HMP Perth to attend the hearing and blankets were provided to facilitate his attendance. He was told that if he refused to wear clothes or make use of the blankets he would not be admitted into the court. He refused to wear clothes or to make use of the blankets and was accordingly not permitted to attend the adjustment hearing. The hearing proceeded in his absence and his requested adjustments were considered by the Sheriff. Two adjustments were allowed and the remaining adjustments rejected. 66. Concerned that the stated case was biased, the applicant did not lodge it with the Justiciary Office. On 29 October 2009, the expiry of the applicable time-limit for lodging, his appeal was deemed abandoned. 67. The applicant spent his sentence in segregation at HMP Perth as he refused to wear clothes. On 17 December 2009 he was released from prison. 68. Minutes after his release on 17 December 2009, the applicant was arrested and charged with breach of the peace for being naked in public. He was detained on remand. 69. On 11 January 2010 he was convicted of breach of the peace. Sentence was deferred to 8 February for up-to-date psychiatric and psychological assessments. 70. On 8 February 2010 the applicant was sentenced to a term of twelve months’ imprisonment plus 180 days unserved from previous sentences. He lodged an appeal; the outcome of the appeal is not known. He was kept in segregation at HMP Perth while in prison because he refused to dress. 71. He was released on 29 October 2010. 72. Minutes after his release on 29 October 2010, the applicant was arrested and charged with breach of the peace for being naked in public. He was detained on remand. 73. On 24 November 2010 he was found guilty of breach of the peace and contempt of court. On 25 November he was sentenced to 312 days’ imprisonment in respect of the breach of the peace charge together with 74 days unserved from previous sentences plus 90 days for contempt of court, to be served consecutively. He was not kept in segregation while in prison at HMP Perth. 74. He was released on 20 July 2011. 75. Minutes after his release on 20 July 2011 at around 9 a.m., the applicant was approached by two police officers on Manson Terrace, a public road leading from HMP Perth to Edinburgh Road. The officers suggested that he put on some clothes but he refused to do so. He was arrested him for breach of the peace and detained on remand. He appeared in court on 21 July 2011 and pleaded not guilty. (b) The trial proceedings 76. The trial commenced on 24 August 2011. The applicant appeared in court naked and was warned by the Sheriff that if he refused to dress or to cover himself he might be held in contempt of court. He refused to put on clothes. (i) The evidence 77. The prosecution led evidence of two police officer witnesses at trial. Their evidence was similar to that given at the 2009 trial and the applicant’s cross-examination was also in similar terms and elicited similar responses (see paragraph 54 above). 78. The applicant did not give evidence in his defence. He argued that his arrest and trial violated the Convention. He relied, inter alia, on Article 5, arguing that there was no reasonable suspicion which would satisfy an objective observer that he had committed an offence; Article 8, arguing that his arrest was arbitrary as it was based on the subjective belief that his nakedness was offensive; Article 9, arguing that he had a strong view that there was nothing indecent about his body and that view was not being respected; Article 10, arguing that he ought to have been given the right to express his views that nakedness was not indecent in the way that he had chosen to do; and Article 14, arguing that he was being discriminated against because he had different views from the majority of people. (ii) The conviction and sentence 79. The Sheriff found that the applicant’s conduct on 20 July 2011 was severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people; threatened serious disturbance to the community; and presented as genuinely alarming, in its context, to any reasonable person. He therefore convicted the applicant. In his stated case prepared in the context of the later appeal proceedings, the Sheriff referred to the applicant’s Convention arguments and continued: “14. I should say that none of these arguments were developed to any extent and it was not always easy to see what [the applicant’s] full argument was. I came to the conclusion that none of the articles suggested by the appellant had been contravened in the procedure ...” 80. As to the conviction handed down, he explained: “15. In my view there was no doubt about the facts in this case ... The question was whether the conduct amounted to a breach of the peace. I was of the view that the first part of the test was easily met by the conduct. The appellant was walking along a public street in full view of anyone passing and he was completely naked with his private parts entirely on show. Such conduct would be severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people especially when it was being carried out in an ordinary public street. It might be different if he had been naked somewhere in private, even in a public place which was remote or where fewer people would be congregated, but in or near one of the main streets of a busy town his appearance in that state would be alarming. 16. The question which was more troubling was whether the second part of the test was met. Would the conduct cause serious disturbance to the community? I came to the conclusion that the context in which the conduct was taking place – being naked in a brazen fashion in the public street with no attempt to cover himself and no obvious explanation or reason for the conduct – would cause serious disturbance to the community because of the reaction of ordinary people to his presence in that state in that place. That would be particularly so if the community could see that children or vulnerable old people might be present. I considered that the test was met and that the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore found the appellant guilty.” 81. The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 330 days for the breach of the peace and 90 days for the contempt charge, together with 237 days unspent from his previous sentence, a total of 657 days. The sentences were not backdated and they were to run consecutively. The total length of the sentence was therefore one year, nine months and eighteen days. (c) The appeal 82. The applicant sought to appeal his conviction by way of note of appeal and a draft stated case was prepared by the Sheriff. 83. Adjustments to the stated case were proposed by both parties and a hearing was held. The applicant was not permitted to attend the hearing since he refused to wear clothes. 84. On 28 October 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal by way of case stated, relying on Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention. 85. On 18 November 2011 the applicant’s application for leave to appeal was considered by the first sift judge. Leave was refused for the following reasons: “The appeal is not arguable. The Sheriff has carefully explained the reasons for arriving at his decision. There was no infringement of the appellant’s rights in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.” 86. On 22 December 2011 the applicant was refused leave on the second sift. The judges found that for the reasons given by the first sift judge the appeal was not arguable. 87. The applicant was not kept in segregation while serving his sentence at HMP Perth. He was released on 17 July 2012. 88. On the same day the applicant was arrested and charged with breach of the peace. He was not held in custody. On 2 August 2012 a decision was made to take no further action. 89. Meanwhile, on 20 July 2012 he was arrested on the outskirts of Dunfermline and charged with breach of the peace. He was detained on remand and appeared at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court in August 2012. He was convicted of breach of the peace and detained at HMP Edinburgh and HMP Kilmarnock. He was kept in segregation during his detention. 90. He was released on 5 October 2012 and headed south towards his home in Eastleigh. 91. In April 2011 the applicant discovered a lump on his right testicle. He was examined in his cell but was required to wear clothes for external appointments. He refused to dress and subsequently made prison complaints about alleged inadequate medical treatment. When they were unsuccessful, he referred the complaints to the Scottish Ministers but on 10 August 2011 he was informed that they were not upheld. The applicant then contacted the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (“the Ombudsman”). However, he was advised that his complaint was not one which the Ombudsman could pursue. On 8 February 2012 he was told that the lump had gone. (b) Visits from family and friends 92. On 27 August 2011 the applicant made a prison complaint that he was not allowed visits. He was told in reply that he was permitted visits provided that he was appropriately dressed. He referred the complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC”) on 1 September 2011. He was advised on 26 September 2011 that the ICC had fully endorsed the suggestion that visits be accommodated in the segregation unit. He was told to discuss this with the relevant staff and book a visit. No visits took place. 93. On 9 November 2011 the applicant contacted the Ombudsman with a complaint that the Scottish Prison Service (“SPS”) was unreasonably refusing to enable him to receive visits. By letter dated 10 January 2012 he was informed that the Ombudsman had not upheld the complaint because according to information from the SPS, he had been asked to cover his genitalia when walking from A Hall, where he was detained, to the segregation unit. He had refused to do so. (c) General dental and medical treatment 94. On 14 September 2011 the applicant made a prison complaint about refusal of dental and general medical treatment over the previous five years while he was in detention. By reply dated 20 September 2011 he was advised that the full range of clinical services were available to prisoners and that he was required to comply with the dress code to attend appointments. He referred the complaint to the Scottish Ministers, who did not uphold his complaint. (d) Association with other prisoners and exercise 95. As noted above, the applicant spent much of his detention in segregation. Even when not in segregation, his ability to participate in activities and to associate with other prisoners was generally limited as long as he remained naked. He was not permitted to access the gym, for health and safety reasons. However, efforts were made to give him access to books and to explore further work or hobbies that could be conducted in his cell. Throughout his time in segregation, the applicant was reviewed regularly by health care professionals. 96. On 29 January 2012 the applicant complained to the prison authorities that he was not allowed to associate with other prisoners or to exercise. By reply dated 31 January 2012 he was told that he was not being denied association or exercise but had excluded himself from these activities by refusing to wear clothes. The applicant referred the complaint to the ICC on 2 February 2012 but the ICC decided that the current arrangements were satisfactory. It noted that if the applicant were to wear clothes, he would be permitted to associate with other prisoners. However, his choice to remain naked gave rise to serious concerns that he might be the victim of violence or unwarranted comments, and the prison had an obligation to ensure his safety. 97. In March 2012 the applicant complained to the Ombudsman that the SPS had given an unreasonable explanation for denying him access to association and exercise. By reply dated 24 May 2012 the Ombudsman informed him that his complaint had not been upheld because prison staff had confirmed that if he wore clothes, he would be able to associate with other prisoners and exercise. 98. The applicant contacted the Law Society of Scotland seeking details of solicitors in Edinburgh experienced in judicial review. He received a list containing the names of fourteen firms, which he duly contacted. None were willing to represent him. However, a further seven firms were recommended to him. He contacted them and was informed that none were willing to represent him. 99. He then contacted the Court of Session to request information regarding exemption from court fees, with a view to commencing judicial review proceedings without legal assistance. He was advised that as he was a prisoner and not in receipt of any State benefits, he was not eligible for exemption from court fees.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1957. He is currently detained in Timişoara Prison. 6. On 28 December 2009 the Cluj Directorate for Investigating and Combating Organised Crime and Terrorism (“DIICOT”) charged the applicant with aggravated fraud and organising a criminal group, and placed him in police custody for twenty-four hours. 7. By an interlocutory judgment of 29 December 2009 the Cluj County Court allowed a request by DIICOT to detain the applicant pending trial for thirty days. On the same date he was detained in the Cluj Police Department. His pre-trial detention was subsequently extended to cover the entire duration of his trial. 8. By a judgment of 5 December 2011 the Cluj County Court convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and organising a criminal group, and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The judgment remained final, after the Cluj Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant on 29 May 2012 and the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by him on points of law (recurs) on 24 September 2012. 9. In his initial letters to the Court, the applicant contended, without providing details, that during the criminal investigation opened against him in 2009 he had been beaten up by police officers. 10. On 17 June 2010 he brought civil proceedings against the Romanian Ministries of Finance and Justice seeking financial compensation for inadequate medical treatment during his pre-trial detention. In his written submissions he also stated that he had been subjected to violence after his arrest. 11. By a final judgment of 7 January 2011 the Cluj County Court dismissed the proceedings as inadmissible on the grounds that it was not competent ratione loci to examine his claim. It referred the case to the Bihor County Court. 12. By a judgment of 31 October 2011 the Bihor County Court dismissed the proceedings on the grounds that the statute of limitations for his claim had taken effect. In addition, the Romanian Ministries of Finance and Justice lacked the locus standi to be sued. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the judgment. 13. In his letters to the Court, the applicant contended that in Aiud, Gherla, Rahova, Jilava, Slobozia, Dej and Miercurea-Ciuc Prisons he had been forced to share cells with between thirty and forty-five smokers, even though he was a non-smoker. They had been noisy and violent. Also, he would constantly be transferred from one prison to another, sometimes for distances of up to 400 kilometres in a vehicle with between thirty and forty detainees, who would smoke, eat and be noisy. Moreover, he had not been provided with adequate medical care during his pre-trial detention. 14. Between 8 January and 3 March 2010 the applicant was detained on several occasions in Dej Prison Hospital for a total of thirty-nine days, in non-smoking cells. He was afforded between 4 and 5.62 sq. m of living space, and was provided with adequate medical treatment for his condition. 15. Between 3 February 2010 and 18 January 2011 he was detained in Gherla Prison on several occasions for a total of two hundred and seventy‑four days, in non-smoking cells. For sixty-three days of his detention he was afforded 5.31 sq. m of living space. For the remaining period he was afforded between 2.06 and 3.43 sq. m of living space. 16. Between 10 and 15 February 2010 the applicant was detained on two occasions in Jilava Prison for a total of four days, in non-smoking cells. For most of his stay he was afforded between 1.78 and 3.69 sq. m of living space; however, for a few hours he was afforded 6.38 sq. m or more of living space. 17. Between 9 and 11 February 2010 the applicant was detained in Slobozia Prison for three days, in a non-smoking cell. He was afforded 4.66 sq. m of living space. 18. Between 11 May and 8 November 2010 the applicant was detained repeatedly in Jilava Prison Hospital for a total of forty-five days, in non‑smoking cells. He was afforded between 4.68 and 5.43 sq. m of living space, and was provided with adequate medical treatment for his condition. 19. On 4 October 2010 the applicant was detained in Rahova Prison for three days, in a non-smoking cell. He was afforded 2.10 sq. m of living space. 20. On 23 December 2010 the applicant was detained in Miercurea-Ciuc Prison for twelve days. He was afforded 1.80 sq. m of living space. 21. The applicant was detained in Aiud Prison repeatedly, but only while in transit to another facility. He would only remain there for a few hours, in a non-smoking cell, and would be afforded between 1.45 and 2.05 sq. m of living space. 22. The applicant was transferred between detention facilities in twenty‑two special vehicles fitted with windows, lights, heating and sunroofs. The vehicles had between sixteen and thirty-eight seats. The number of detainees transported would never exceed the number of available seats. Detainees were provided with food and water during transfers, and were allowed bathroom breaks and access to running water and smoking areas every time the vehicle stopped at a prison. Smoking was strictly prohibited during transfers. 23. During his detention, the applicant had refused to provide information on his pre-existing medical condition and had repeatedly refused treatment for his chronic and psychiatric problems. 24. On 18 January 2011 the applicant was released from pre-trial detention under the condition not lo leave the country pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings opened against him. 25. On 10 June 2013 the applicant was detained again following his conviction of 24 September 2012 (see paragraph 8 above) and was incarcerated in Timişoara Prison.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant is a Polish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Będzin. 7. The parties gave partly different descriptions of certain facts of the case concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention and the “dangerous detainee” regime (see paragraphs 54-57 and 68-75 below). The remaining facts were not in dispute. 8. On 27 December 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. 9. On 29 December 2000 the Sosnowiec District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed robbery, theft and had caused bodily harm, acting with two other persons. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. In that respect, it was noted that the applicant had threatened the victims in order to stop them from informing the police of the offences allegedly committed and from testifying against him. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence. 10. In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on 31 January and 19 March 2001. In their detention decisions, the courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. 11. On 13 June 2001 the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Sosnowiec District Court. The applicant, together with two co-accused, was charged with robbery, two counts of theft and causing bodily harm. 12. During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on 26 June and 6 December 2001, 8 March, 26 July, 22 November and 18 December 2002 and again on 29 January 2003. The courts repeated the grounds previously given for his continued detention. 13. On 28 February 2003 the Sosnowiec District Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. 14. The applicant appealed. He was held in detention pending appeal for the subsequent months. 15. On 23 April 2004 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) heard the applicant’s appeal. It quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. 16. The courts further extended the applicant’s detention on 10 May, 23 July, 27 September and 11 October 2004, relying on the initial grounds. 17. On 22 November 2004 the District Court decided that the applicant’s detention should be replaced by police supervision (dozór policji) but he was not released and remained in custody under a detention order given in the second set of criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 23 below). 18. On 27 January 2006 the Sosnowiec District Court again convicted the applicant as charged but mitigated the sentence to 5 years’ imprisonment. The period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 27 December 2000 to 23 November 2004 was deducted from the sentence. 19. On 26 October 2006 the Katowice Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment. 20. From 7 December 2006 to 10 January 2008 the applicant served the prison sentence following his conviction of 27 January 2006. 21. On 26 April 2004 the applicant was charged with robbery and battery committed in an organised criminal group. 22. On 28 April 2004 the Katowice District Court remanded the applicant in custody for three months relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence by inducing other co-accused or witnesses to give false testimony. In this context the court referred to the fact that the applicant was suspected of serious offences committed in an organised criminal group. Later, several other members of the same criminal group were detained and charged in the investigation against the applicant. 23. The applicant’s appeal against the detention order was unsuccessful, as were his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him. 24. On 27 September 2004 the Katowice District Court extended the applicant’s detention to 30 December 2004. It repeated the grounds that had previously been given for the applicant’s detention. 25. On 18 November 2004 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Częstochowa Regional Court. The applicant was charged with extortion and causing bodily harm. The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges brought against 15 accused. 26. On 9 June 2005 the Częstochowa Regional Court held the first hearing. It subsequently scheduled some 60 hearings in the case. During the court proceedings the Częstochowa Regional Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on several occasions, namely on 21 December 2004 (until 30 June 2005), on 23 June 2005 (until 31 December 2005) and on 14 December 2005 (until 27 May 2006). It repeated the grounds that had previously been given for the applicant’s continued detention. In particular, the court referred to the fact that the applicant was suspected of committing offences in an organised criminal group which involved 15 co-accused and 47 charges. 27. Because the length of the applicant’s detention was about to reach the statutory two-year time‑limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Częstochowa Regional Court applied to the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), asking for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond that term. The Katowice Court of Appeal extended his detention on 19 April 2006 (until 31 October 2006), 11 October 2006 (until 28 February 2007), 22 February 2007 (until 30 June 2007), 20 June 2007 (until 30 November 2007) and 28 November 2007 (until 31 January 2008). The court referred in particular to the need to obtain evidence from several further witnesses. The Court confirmed that the hearings were held at regular intervals, however the case was very complex. 28. On 10 January 2008 the Częstochowa Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. He remained detained pending appellate proceedings. 29. On 15 January 2009 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance judgment in respect of the applicant and the few other co‑accused and in this part remitted the case for retrial. On the same date the court also decided to lift the applicant’s detention but he still remained detained in the third set of criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 42 below). 30. On 10 March, 14 April, 12 May and 19 May 2010 the Częstochowa Regional Court held hearings. 31. It would appear that the proceedings were terminated at a later, unknown date. 32. On 31 March 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Katowice Court of Appeal under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). 33. On 25 May 2010 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It considered that the proceedings before the trial court had been conducted with the requisite speed. In particular, the court observed that the hearings had been held frequently, at regular intervals and only a few of them had been adjourned due to reasons not imputable to the trial court. 34. On 15 May 2007 the Katowice-Wschód District Court remanded the applicant in custody relying on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences of extortion while acting in an organised criminal group. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. The court also stressed the likelihood of a lengthy prison sentence being imposed on him and the complexity of the case. 35. The Katowice-Wschód District Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on several occasions, namely on 10 August 2007 (until 31 October 2007), 25 October 2007 (until 31 January 2008), 25 January 2008 (until 31 March 2008) and 26 March 2008 (until 30 June 2008). It repeated the original grounds given to justify for the applicant’s detention. The applicant’s appeal against the detention order and his further appeals against the above decisions extending his detention were unsuccessful. 36. On 25 June 2008 the Katowice-Wschód District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to 30 September 2008. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 37. On 30 June 2008 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with extortion and endangering other persons. 38. On 23 July 2008 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the decision of Katowice-Wschód District Court of 25 June 2008. It held that the decision to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention beyond the period of one year should be taken by a regional court. The applicant remained detained in the second set of criminal proceedings (see paragraph 28 above). 39. On 26 September 2008 the Katowice Regional Court remanded the applicant in custody relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he was charged. It also considered that keeping him in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. It further noted that the applicant was detained in another set of criminal proceedings against him in which he had been sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order. 40. On 5 November 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the order. It considered that the Katowice Regional Court had failed to give relevant reasons for the prolongation of the applicant’s detention. The applicant was still detained in the second set of criminal proceedings (see paragraph 28 above). 41. On 24 November 2008 the Katowice Regional Court again remanded the applicant in custody. It held that the evidence which had been gathered in the case, in particular the testimonies of other suspects, showed that there was a sufficient probability that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or would otherwise obstruct the proceedings. The latter risk was considered of the utmost importance in the light of the fact that the case involved a large number of alleged accomplices. 42. On 19 February 2009 the Katowice Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 May 2009. The applicant appealed. 43. On 1 April 2009 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision. It held that the impugned decision was given by a single judge whereas it should have been taken by a panel composed of one judge and two lay judges. On the same date the Katowice Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention to 24 May 2009. On 18 May 2009 it further extended the applicant’s detention to 6 August 2009. It referred to the severity of the anticipated penalty, the risk that the applicant would attempt to induce witnesses, in particular as he was charged with acting in an organised criminal group and the complexity of the case. 44. On 29 July 2009 and 4 November 2009 the Katowice Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to 15 November 2009 and 31 March 2010 respectively. In its decisions the court underlined the complexity of the case, the fact that it involved thirteen co-accused and that evidence from 48 witnesses was to be obtained. It further noted the severity of the penalty to which the applicant was liable. Having regard to the organised character of the alleged criminal activities, it also held that the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to prevent the applicant from interfering with the proceedings. 45. On 30 March 2010 the applicant was released from custody under police supervision. 46. The applicant submitted to the Court an envelope of the Ombudsman’s (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) letter of 6 July 2004, addressed to him and bearing a stamp “censored on...”. Another stamp indicated that the letter was received at Katowice Remand Centre on 9 July 2004. 47. On 30 July 2004 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the censorship of his correspondence with the Ombudsman on the grounds that this measure had been applied in accordance with law, i.e. the relevant provisions of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences. 48. On 9 August 2004 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor, in response to the applicant’s complaints that his letters had been delayed or intercepted, informed him that his correspondence was transmitted to him “immediately after its censorship”. 49. On 28 April 2008 the applicant submitted an envelope of the Court Registry’s letter of 11 January 2008 bearing a stamp “censored on...”. A postmark indicated that the letter was delivered to an unspecified post office in Częstochowa on 17 January 2008. 50. On 27 May 2004 the Katowice Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (Komisja Penitencjarna) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. It considered that this was necessary given that he was charged with numerous offences committed as a member of an organised criminal group. The commission also referred to the high degree of demoralisation of the applicant. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against this decision. 51. Every three months the commission reviewed, and upheld, its decision classifying the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. The commission underlined that the initial grounds for imposing the special confinement measure were still valid. In its decision of 23 February 2005 it also pointed to the fact that the applicant used threats and intimidation to try to compel other detainees to go on hunger strike and to ignore the orders of the remand centre’s staff. The applicant’s appeals against these decisions were dismissed as ill-founded. 52. As a “dangerous detainee”, the applicant was subjected to a body search every time he entered or left his cell which meant that he had to strip naked in front of two prison guards at least twice a day. The body search was performed in a separate room, which was monitored and its recording was viewable in a duty room. Whenever the applicant was outside his cell, including his appearances at court hearings, he wore the so-called “joined shackles” (kajdany zespolone) on his hands and feet. In addition, his cell, including the sanitary corner was monitored via CCTV. 53. On 15 November 2005 the commission lifted the “dangerous detainee” status in the applicant’s respect. 54. The applicant submitted that on several occasions his body search was monitored by a female prison officer. 55. The Government claimed that a body search was conducted exclusively by the male prison staff and the presence of persons of the opposite sex was never permitted. 56. The applicant further claimed that whenever outside his cell he had to wear the “joined shackles” on his hands and feet. 57. The Government argued that the applicant had not been obliged to wear the joined shackles while moving around his prison ward. 58. On 27 December 2000 the applicant was committed to Sosnowiec Remand Centre. He remained there until 18 March 2002. Subsequently, until his release on 30 March 2010, (see paragraph 46 above) he was held in several detention facilities, including Strzelce Opolskie Prison (from 18 March 2002 to 3 February 2004), Katowice Remand Centre (from 3 February 2004 to 1 June 2006 and then for an unspecified period from May 2009 until his release on 30 March 2010), Częstochowa Remand Centre (from 1 June 2006 to 24 January 2008), Bytom Remand Centre (24 January 2008 to January 2009) and Wojkowice Prison (unspecified dates in January 2009 until May 2009). Except for the period from 27 May 2004 to 15 November 2005, when the applicant was subjected to the “dangerous detainee” regime, he was detained under the ordinary prison regime in multi-occupancy cells. (i) Sosnowiec Remand Centre 59. The inmates had been provided with toothpaste, soap and other basic hygiene products but their quality had been very poor. 60. The applicant acknowledged that the cells had been equipped adequately to ensure that every inmate had his own place to sleep, eat and store his food or other items. (ii) Katowice Remand Centre 61. In each cell to which the applicant was allocated there was a separate, closed toilet and the cells had been adequately equipped with furniture. The applicant was provided with the necessary hygiene products. Hot meals were distributed directly to the cells. The bed linen was changed every 2 weeks. The applicant was entitled to a shower once a week. He had access to the prison library. (iii) Częstochowa Remand Centre 62. The cells in which the applicant was held were adequately equipped with furniture. The applicant was provided with the necessary hygiene products. The bed linen was changed every 2 weeks. The applicant was entitled to a shower once a week. He had access to the prison library. (b) The applicant’s complaints to penitentiary authorities and his civil actions 63. The applicant lodged several complaints about the conditions of his detention with the penitentiary authorities. All of them were dismissed as ill‑founded. 64. On 22 December 2009 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State Treasury statio fisci Sosnowiec Remand Centre for the infringement of his personal rights on account of overcrowding and the degrading conditions of his detention. The applicant did not inform the Court of the outcome of the proceedings. 65. On 23 December 2009 the applicant lodged a similar civil action against the State Treasury statio fisci Katowice Remand Centre for the infringement of his personal rights on account of overcrowding and the degrading conditions of his detention. On 31 March 2010 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant’s appealed. On 30 September 2010 the Katowice Court of Appeal rejected his appeal on formal grounds. 66. On 5 January 2010 the applicant lodged yet another civil action against the State Treasury statio fisci Częstochowa Remand Centre for the infringement of his personal rights on account of overcrowding and degrading conditions of his detention. On 5 August 2010 the Częstochowa Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court established that between 1 June 2006 and 22 January 2007 the applicant was assigned to cell no. 40 where the space available was 1.7 m² per person. Between 23 January 2007 and 24 January 2008 the applicant was placed in cell no. 52, where the space available was 2.1m². However, the court considered that the applicant had failed to provide the names of inmates sharing his cells. The applicant failed to inform the Court whether he had lodged an appeal against this judgment. 67. In his letter of 28 September 2011 the applicant stated generally: “all my civil actions were rejected and I was ordered to pay costs of legal representation.” 68. The applicant submitted that throughout the entire period of his detention he was held in overcrowded cells. Despite his numerous requests, he was not allowed to work in prison. (b) The Government 69. As regards the general conditions of the applicant’s detention, the applicant was held in adequately equipped cells, with enough private space for every inmate. He was provided with the necessary cosmetics and other hygiene products. He had been given the possibility of a daily walk and could participate in various cultural and indoor recreation activities in prison. 70. As regards overcrowding, the Government supplied the following information concerning the applicant’s detention in Sosnowiec Remand Centre, Bytom Remand Centre, Wojkowice Prison and Katowice Remand Centre. 71. In Sosnowiec Remand Centre decisions reducing the minimum statutory space of 3 m2 in respect of the applicant were given on 8 June, 8 August, 14 September, 8 October and 19 November 2001, then on 15 January, 22 February, 3 April, 28 May, 27 June, 28 August, 17 October, 14 November 2002 and 24 January 2003. However, the Government submitted that since the authorities of Sosnowiec Remand Centre had not kept any record of persons allocated to particular cells, it was impossible to determine the exact number of inmates in the applicant’s cells during his detention. 72. In Bytom Remand Centre the applicant was detained in overcrowded cells from 24 January to 13 February 2008, on 29 February 2008 and from 21 to 25 March 2008. 73. In Wojkowice Prison the applicant was held in overcrowded cells on 5 January 2009, from 20 January to 8 February 2009, on 19 February 2009 and from 7 to 11 March 2009. 74. In Katowice Remand Centre the applicant was held in overcrowded cells from 23 October to 5 November 2009. The Government submitted that since the prison authorities had not kept any record of persons allocated to particular cells, it was impossible to determine the exact number of inmates in the applicant’s cells during his detention. 75. The applicant submitted that throughout his detention in the Czestochowa Remand Centre he had been held in overcrowded cells. The Government replied that since the prison authorities had not kept any record of persons allocated to particular cells, it was impossible to determine the exact number of inmates in the applicant’s cells during his detention.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}