Datasets:

akkasi

/

ecthr_cases

like 0

5. The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Konotop. 6. On 8 January 2009 the Konotop Transport Prosecutor’s Office of the Sumy Region instituted proceedings against the applicant, then an officer of the Konotop Transport Police, on suspicion of abuse and exceeding his authority with respect to Mr Z. 7. On 9 January 2009 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Konotop Temporary Detention Facility (“the ITT”). 8. On 12 January 2009 the Konotop Court examined the applicant’s complaint against his arrest and the investigator’s request for the applicant’s detention. The court rejected the applicant’s complaint and extended his detention for up to ten days. 9. On 17 January 2009 the applicant was charged with abuse and exceeding his authority. 10. On 19 January 2009 the Konotop Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the grounds that he was accused of a serious offence related to corruption which had become publicly known, that being at large he could evade investigation, continue his criminal activities and influence persons related to the investigation, and that his state of health was compatible with detention. 11. The same day, the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the above decision. 12. On 26 January 2009 the applicant was transferred to the Sumy Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the SIZO”). 13. On 3 February 2009 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the decision of 19 January 2009. 14. On 5 March 2009 the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for up to three months. The court noted that the applicant was accused of a serious offence and if released could evade investigation and trial, obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case, influence witnesses and victims. This decision was upheld by the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) on 24 March 2009. 15. On 3 April 2009 the investigator brought additional charges against the applicant for misappropriation of money and documents. 16. On 7 April 2009 the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy extended the applicant’s detention for up to four months on the same grounds as in its decision of 5 March 2009. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 28 April 2009. 17. On 6 May 2009 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention for up to six months on the ground that the applicant was accused of serious offences punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment and that being at large he could obstruct investigation and continue his criminal activities. 18. On 30 June 2009 the Konotop Court (“the trial court”) held a preparatory hearing. The applicant’s lawyer requested the applicant’s release, but this request was rejected. The court stated that there were no reasons to change the preventive measure in respect of the applicant. 19. On 23 February 2010 the trial court found the applicant guilty of misappropriation of property and abuse of authority sentencing him to five years’ and one month’s imprisonment and confiscation of half of his property other than his residence. It also barred him from occupying positions in law enforcement for three years. 20. On 18 May 2010 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 23 February 2010 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the trial court. It also decided that the applicant was to remain in detention pending retrial. 21. On 17 September 2010 the trial court found the applicant guilty as in its judgment of 23 February 2010, changing the applicant’s sentence of imprisonment to five years and three months. 22. On 25 November 2010 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 17 September 2010 and remitted the case for retrial. It also decided that the applicant was to remain in detention pending retrial. 23. On 31 January 2011 the applicant lodged a request with the trial court seeking release from custody on an undertaking not to abscond. He argued in particular that there was no reason to believe that he presented a risk of absconding or influencing witnesses, that he had a wife who was ill and in need of hospitalisation. On the same day the trial court rejected the request stating that it was “premature”. 24. On 21 February 2011 the trial court convicted the applicant as in its judgment of 23 February 2010. 25. On 17 May 2011 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 21 February 2011 and remitted the case for retrial. It also decided that the applicant was to remain in detention pending retrial. 26. On the same day the Court of Appeal issued a separate ruling pointing out to the president of the trial court that the trial court had repeatedly failed to rectify the errors found by the Court of Appeal in its previous decisions. 27. On 22 September 2011 the applicant requested release claiming that his state of health was not compatible with detention and that he could not receive appropriate medical treatment in SIZO. The trial court rejected this request the same day without giving any reasons. 28. On 29 September 2011 the trial court found the applicant guilty of misappropriation of property and documents, and abuse of authority, sentencing him to the same punishment as in the judgment of 23 February 2010. 29. On 17 January 2012 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 29 September 2011 with certain amendments. 30. On 31 January 2012 the applicant was transferred to the Mensk Prison to serve his sentence. 31. On 13 July 2012 the applicant was released on parole in accordance with the ruling of the Mensk Court of 5 July 2012. 32. On 29 January 2013 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal of 17 January 2012 and remitted the case for a fresh examination on appeal. 33. On 16 April 2013 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 29 September 2011 and remitted the case for retrial. 34. As of 31 March 2014 the proceedings in the applicant’s case were pending before the trial court. 35. From 29 December 2008 to 6 January 2009 the applicant was treated at the Konotop District Hospital where he was diagnosed with hypertension of the first (mildest) degree, hyperlipidemia, myocardial fibrosis, ventricular dilation, obesity, fatty hepatosis, chronic cholecistitis, and chronic pancreatitis. As treatment, the applicant was put on a diet excluding fried, salty, spicy foods, strong tea or coffee and certain other foods. 36. On 12 January, 15 January and 17 January 2009 the applicant complained to the ITT medical officer of headaches, numbness of limbs, and weakness. He was diagnosed with hypertensive crises and medication was administered. 37. On 22 January 2009 the applicant was examined at a hospital. It was determined that the applicant did not require hospitalisation. 38. On 25 January 2009 the ITT medical officer noted that the applicant complained on that day about headache and dizziness. Previous diagnosis was confirmed and medication was administered to the applicant. 39. On 26 January 2009 the applicant was examined by a medical assistant on his admission to the Sumy Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the SIZO”). The applicant did not complain about his health. 40. On 28 January 2009 the applicant was examined by a doctor of the SIZO medical unit. He was diagnosed with gastritis and medication was prescribed. 41. On 4 February 2009 the applicant was examined by a doctor who diagnosed him with cardioneurosis and prescribed medication. 42. According to the Government, the applicant was examined by medical specialists at the SIZO on 23 occasions from 9 February 2009 to 16 August 2011, both on his initiative and as part of regular check-ups. He complained about headaches and stomach aches. Previously established diagnoses were confirmed. In addition, on 25 August 2010 the applicant was diagnosed with dermatitis. The applicant was prescribed various medications. 43. On 17 August 2011 the head of the SIZO medical unit wrote to the applicant saying that the SIZO provided only urgent dental care, including tooth extraction and pain relief, and did not provide implant care or treatment for cavities. 44. On 25 November 2011 the applicant complained about a headache, was examined by a neuropathologist and ophthalmologist. He was diagnosed with astheno-vegetative syndrome and prescribed certain medicines. 45. On 13 January 2012 the applicant complained of stomach aches, was diagnosed with chronic gastroduodenitis and prescribed medication. 46. On 31 January 2012 the applicant was examined by medical staff on his admission to the Mensk Prison. His state of health was found to be satisfactory. 47. On 15 June 2012 the applicant was diagnosed as having an inguinal hernia. He was prescribed bed rest. On 18 June, 20 June, 25 June, 5 July and 7 July 2012 the diagnosis and the recommendation were confirmed. 48. On 13 July 2012 the head of the medical unit of the SIZO issued a certificate which stated that the applicant had repeatedly undergone courses of outpatient treatment while at the SIZO. It further stated that at the time the certificate was issued the applicant continued to complain about his state of health, regularly requested consultations in connection with stomach, liver, heart and kidney pains. It went on to state that in this connection the applicant was recommended additional consultation from gastroenterologist, cardiologist, nephrologist and an infrasound examination and that the SIZO had no such specialists on its staff.

{'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 1956 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk. 6. He instituted numerous sets of proceedings before the domestic courts at various times. 7. In July 2009 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administrative Court received several letters from the applicant, which contained extremely rude remarks about the judges involved in his cases (including calling one of the judges “a louse [whose recusal was] warranted by his basic knowledge of parasitology”). 8. On 23 July 2009 the court drew up an administrative offence report in respect of the letters, stating that the applicant was in contempt of court. The case was sent to the Krasnogvardiyskyy[1] District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court”) for examination. 9. On the same day the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, held a hearing with the applicant’s participation. According to the minutes of the hearing, the applicant insisted on his vision of the situation as presented in his letters, which he did not consider to be rude. Having studied the case file and heard the applicant, the court ordered an in-patient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant with a view to establishing whether he could be held legally accountable. The examination in question was to be carried out by the Forensic Psychiatric Examinations Department of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital (“the psychiatric hospital”). The judge relied on Article 20 of the Code of Administrative Offences and section 21 of the Psychiatric Assistance Act (see paragraphs 60 and 63 below). The ruling stated that it was not amenable to appeal. 10. The applicant was taken by the police from the hearing room to the Krasnogvardiyskyy District police station, where he was held for about three hours. He was then taken to the psychiatric hospital. 11. On the following day, 24 July 2009, the psychiatric hospital informed the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court that it would be unable to conduct a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant, as ordered by the court, because there were no documents about his collateral history or personality in the case file. The applicant was discharged from the hospital without any documents having been issued concerning his psychiatric condition. 12. On 31 July 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against the ruling of 23 July 2009. He submitted, in particular, that it had been in breach of his right to the presumption of good mental health and that such a ruling was not mentioned in the list of rulings a court was entitled to deliver under the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant also referred to the statement contained in the impugned ruling that it was not amenable to appeal as another indication of its unlawfulness and arbitrariness. 13. On 4 August 2009 the President of the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court instructed the police to collect information on the applicant’s personality, which was required for the psychiatric hospital to establish his mental state. The police were instructed, in particular, to collect any documentation relating to psychiatric treatment or drug therapy received by the applicant, as well as character references for him from his relatives, neighbours and colleagues. 14. On the same day two of the applicant’s neighbours wrote quite positive character references about him for the police. 15. On 6 August 2009 the local hospital informed the police that the applicant had no psychiatric medical history and was not under psychiatric monitoring. 16. On 14 August 2009 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the ruling of 23 July 2009 without examining it on the merits. It noted that the contested ruling concerned a procedural issue and was not amenable to appeal. 17. On 2 September 2009 the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court requested the police to ensure that the applicant attended for his in-patient forensic psychiatric examination. 18. On 14 September 2009 the police took the applicant back to the psychiatric hospital. The circumstances of the apprehension are unclear. 19. On 21 September 2009 a senior expert at the forensic psychiatric examinations department of the psychiatric hospital wrote a letter to the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court in which he noted that some additional documents were required in connection with the applicant’s examination: a character reference from his former employer and detailed information about his mental state from his cousin and ex-wife. Without that information it was considered impossible to carry out his examination. 20. On 2 October 2009 the applicant’s cousin explained the applicant’s character and behaviour, without noting any particularities. He also stated that the applicant had never been married. 21. On 8 October 2009 the board of experts delivered its report, according to which, “given the complexity of the case and lack of clarity of the clinical picture”, it was impossible to establish a diagnosis and to give an expert conclusion regarding the applicant’s mental state. It was therefore recommended that he undergo another examination. 22. On the same date the applicant was discharged from the hospital without having received the expert report. According to him, one of the experts had assured him that he was in good mental health. 23. On 6 November 2009 an official from the psychiatric hospital wrote to the applicant, in reply to his request for a copy of the report of 8 October 2009, stating that he should ask the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court for a copy of the report, as it had been sent there. 24. On the basis of the material in the case file, on 19 November 2009 the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court ordered that the applicant undergo another in-patient forensic psychiatric examination. The applicant attempted to challenge that decision on appeal but was unsuccessful. 25. On 1 December 2009 the psychiatric hospital returned the case file to the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court without having conducted the psychiatric examination in question. Referring to the respective order of the Public Health Ministry, it said that the Kyiv City Centre of Forensic Psychiatric Examinations or the Ukrainian Research Institute of Social and Forensic Psychiatrics should carry out any further forensic psychiatric examinations required in such complex cases. 26. On 18 January 2010 the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court adjourned its hearing with a view to organising the applicant’s further psychiatric examination and its financing. 27. On 20 January 2010 the Deputy President of the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court enquired with the local Territorial Department of the State Judicial Administration whether the latter could pay for the applicant’s further psychiatric examination. The reply sent on 22 January 2010 was that no such payment would be possible until the annual budget had been approved. 28. On 25 January 2010 the court ordered the applicant’s outpatient psychiatric examination to be carried out by the Zaporizhzhya Regional Psychiatric Hospital. 29. Following numerous unsuccessful attempts to ensure the applicant’s attendance, on 16 July 2010 the hospital returned the case file to the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court without having complied with its order. 30. On 9 August 2010 the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court discontinued the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant as time-barred. 31. The applicant appealed against that ruling. He sought the termination of the proceedings on the ground that no administrative offence had been committed. 32. On 17 September 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal, following a hearing with the applicant’s participation, rejected his appeal by a final ruling. 1. Concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s admission to hospital for a psychiatric examination and his subsequent confinement therein 33. It appears from the case-file materials that on 9 November 2009 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Zhovtnevyy Court”) against the psychiatric hospital. He sought that his hospitalisation and confinement in that hospital be declared unlawful and claimed 500,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH, at the time equivalent to about 41,000 euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant has not submitted a copy of that claim to the Court. 34. On 7 June 2011 the Zhovtnevyy Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. Relying, in particular, on Article 5 of the Convention, the court concluded that the applicant’s admission to hospital on 23 July and 14 September 2009, as well as his psychiatric confinement from 23 to 24 July and from 14 September to 8 October 2009, had been unlawful. More specifically, the court considered that the defendant had acted in breach of the presumption of the good mental health of the applicant. Furthermore, the hospital in question was only entitled to conduct forensic psychiatric examinations of detainees, whereas the applicant had not been in detention at the time of the events. The court also noted that, even though the applicant’s examination had been ordered by a judicial decision, the hospital could have refused to carry it out. The applicant’s claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage was, however, rejected. 35. On 1 September 2011 the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the aforementioned judgment and terminated the proceedings on the ground that the case did not fall to be examined under the administrative procedure. 36. On 11 October 2011 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the ruling of 1 September 2011 as belated. 37. On 14 November 2011 the Higher Administrative Court informed the applicant that it remained open for him to lodge a new appeal on points of law together with a request for renewal of the time-limit. 38. The case file before the Court does not contain copies of the applicant’s appeals on points of law or his requests for renewal of the time-limits for lodging those appeals. 39. It appears from the case file that on 25 January 2010 the applicant brought another administrative claim against the psychiatric hospital before the Zhovtnevyy Court. He requested that the court recognise as unlawful the hospital’s refusal to provide him with a copy of the examination report of 8 October 2009 (see paragraphs 21-23 above). The applicant also claimed UAH 10,000 (at the material time equivalent to about EUR 880) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant has not provided the Court with a copy of that claim. 40. On 5 July 2011 the Zhovtnevyy Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. It recognised as unlawful the hospital’s refusal to provide him with a copy of the examination report of 8 October 2009 and awarded him UAH 500 (equivalent of about EUR 40) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 41. Both the applicant and the defendant appealed. The applicant claimed a higher award. The hospital argued, in particular, that the case did not fall to be examined in the administrative courts. 42. On 17 October 2011 the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the first-instance court. It noted that the hospital was a public health establishment and that the administrative courts were thus competent to deal with the case. The appellate court also stated that its ruling could be challenged on points of law before the Higher Administrative Court. 43. The applicant has not informed the Court whether he appealed on points of law against the ruling. 44. On 25 January 2010 the applicant brought a civil claim against the psychiatric hospital before the Zhovtnevyy Court, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He has not submitted a copy of his claim to the Court. 45. On 12 February 2010 the Zhovtnevyy Court returned that claim to the applicant on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with it. It informed the applicant that he should lodge his claim with the Samarskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, the district in which the respondent hospital was located. 46. The applicant appealed against the above ruling. He has not submitted to the Court a copy of his appeal. 47. On 25 May 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of 12 February 2010. 48. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 49. On 22 June 2010 the Supreme Court noted that the applicant had failed to pay the court fees and gave him until 29 July 2010 to rectify that omission. 50. On an unspecified date in July 2010 the applicant requested that the Supreme Court exempt him from the court fees. He has not submitted a copy of his request to the Court. According to a summary of the request in the respective ruling of the Supreme Court (see below), the applicant referred to the Court’s judgment on his earlier case (no. 29875/02, 22 November 2007), in which a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, had been found on account of the lengthy non-enforcement of an unrelated final domestic judgment in his favour. 51. On 10 August 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the aforementioned request and dismissed the applicant’s appeals on points of law. 52. On 30 November 2009 the applicant complained to the Krasnogvardiyskyy District Prosecutor’s Office against some judicial officials involved in his cases and against the police officers involved in his taking him to hospital for psychiatric examination. The applicant did not provide the Court with a copy of the complaint. 53. On 29 December 2009 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case in respect of the applicant’s complaint. The case file does not contain a copy of that ruling. 54. On 23 March 2010 the Dnipropetrvosk Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the prosecutor’s refusal and ordered an additional investigation. 55. On 9 April 2010 the Krasnogvardiyskyy Prosecutor’s Office once again refused to open a criminal investigation into the matter. It was noted in its ruling, in particular, that the applicant had disregarded numerous written summonses and telephone calls by the investigator. 56. The applicant alleged that while he had been in hospital, some money had been stolen from his flat. When he had returned home he had allegedly discovered a briefcase there containing personal documents belonging to a person unknown to him. The applicant complained to the police. 57. On 16 December 2009 the police opened a criminal case in respect of the alleged theft of the applicant’s property. 58. There is no further information on that investigation in the case file.

{'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 were born in 1938 and 1972 respectively and live in Donetsk. 5. On 13 October 2001 Yaroslav Barsukov, the first applicant’s grandson and the second applicant’s son, born in 1992, and his friend N. P. were hit by a car, when crossing the street. Yaroslav Barsukov died in hospital from his injuries. N. P. sustained minor injuries. On the date of the accident the police inspected the site of the collision, established the identity of the driver (O.F.) and examined him as well as several eyewitnesses. 6. On 17 October 2001 the Donetsk Police Department instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion that O.F. had driven negligently. On various dates both applicants were admitted to the proceedings as injured parties. 7. On 26 November 2001, after having questioned the eyewitnesses and having conducted several expert assessments, the police discontinued the proceedings. They concluded that O. F. had no technical possibility to avoid the collision, as the two boys had suddenly emerged from behind a vehicle parked along the street. 8. Following the Barsukov family’s complaints that the investigation was perfunctory, on 8 January 2002 the above decision was revoked and the case was remitted for further investigation. 9. Between January 2002 and June 2008 the proceedings were discontinued on numerous occasions (namely, on 30 January and 15 April 2002 and 8 May, 1 August and 30 October 2003) for want of evidence that O. F. had been at fault in causing the accident. The above decisions were subsequently quashed by higher law-enforcement or judicial authorities (namely, on 8 January and 22 March 2002, 3 March, 19 May and 26 September 2003 and 4 August 2004), with reference to various omissions in the investigation and instructions to carry out further activities with a view to collecting evidence. 10. On 12 May 2005 the Deputy Minister of the Interior informed the first applicant that, following her complaints, an internal investigation into the quality of work organisation in the Donetsk Police Department for the investigation of road traffic accidents had been carried out. As a result, various shortcomings had been revealed and the Chief of the Department and a Senior Investigator had been subjected to disciplinary sanctions. 11. On 8 June 2005, following the applicants’ complaints, the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office requested the First Deputy Head of the Donetsk Department of the Ministry of the Interior to review the quality of investigation in Yaroslav Barsukov’s case. It was noted that there were numerous omissions in the examination of the accident site. In particular, the police had failed to record the position of Yaroslav Barsukov’s body after the collision; to establish the exact place of the collision; to identify the driver of a parked vehicle from behind which the children had emerged on to the road; to photograph the site; to examine the interior of O.F.’s car; to check the level of alcohol in O.F.’s blood; to question a street-stall seller who had witnessed the accident. 12. On 18 June 2005 the Donetsk Department of the Ministry of the Interior acknowledged that there were omissions in investigating the circumstances of the accident. It found, however, that a disciplinary action against the officer responsible would have been time-barred. 13. In April 2008 O.F. was indicted of negligent driving resulting in a fatal accident and in June 2008 committed to stand trial before the Voroshylivsky District Court of Donetsk. The first applicant lodged a civil claim within the framework of these proceedings. It is not clear whether the second applicant also lodged a civil claim. 14. Between June 2008 and September 2011 some forty hearings were scheduled. Some twenty of them were adjourned or rescheduled, the reasons including repeated failures of witnesses to appear, health-related and other absences of the defendant party and various administrative reasons, such as unavailability of recording equipment for a hearing or absences of the presiding judge. 15. On 23 September 2011 the court found that the case-file contained sufficient proof that O.F. had committed a negligent offence. It further closed the proceedings relying on the Amnesty Act of 2011, which allowed, in particular, to dispense with prosecution of disabled individuals, who had committed unintentional crimes. Based on the available materials, this decision was not appealed against.

{'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 Donetsk. 6. On the night of 30 September 2006 the applicant’s son (born in 1984) took part in “AutoQuest”, a location-based driving game in the city of Donetsk. In accordance with the rules of the game, the participants were divided into teams and each team had to move by car to different locations in the city. On arrival at an intermediary destination each team had to solve a riddle in order to establish the next destination point, and the winner was the team that reached the final destination first. 7. The applicant’s son was in the team of P., who was the driver. During the game P. lost control of the car and collided with a pillar. As a result of the accident, P. was injured and his three passengers, including the applicant’s son, died. 8. On 1 October 2006 the Donetsk Region police department opened an investigation under Article 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code in connection with the fatal car accident. 9. On 3 October 2006 the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as a victim. 10. On 19 February 2007, in reply to an enquiry from the applicant concerning the investigation, the Donetsk City prosecutor’s office informed him that the case was complicated and the police had to order various expert examinations; the activities of the organisers of the driving game were also being examined. 11. On 23 February 2007 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings against the organisers of the driving game. 12. On 10 July 2007 the board of forensic psychiatric experts completed their examination and found that at the time of the accident P. had been aware of his actions and able to control them. Following the injuries sustained in the accident, P. had developed a chronic mental disability. He was diagnosed with a complicated organic impairment of the brain and amnestic syndrome. The experts found that at the time of the examination P. had no longer been aware of his actions or able to control them and that he should therefore undergo mandatory psychiatric treatment. 13. On 24 October 2008, in reply to a complaint lodged by the applicant about the ineffectiveness of the investigation, the Donetsk Region prosecutor’s office maintained that the criminal investigation was being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that there had been no grounds to change the investigator in the criminal proceedings. 14. On 5 February 2009 the case file was referred to the Kuybashevskyy District Court of Donetsk (“the first-instance court”) in order to determine whether it was appropriate to apply compulsory medical measures in respect of P. 15. On 15 March 2010 the chairman of the Donetsk Region Council of Judges requested that the chairman of the first-instance court ensure prompt consideration of the criminal case. He noted that the court hearings had been repeatedly adjourned and the length of the proceedings had not been reasonable. 16. On 28 February 2011 the board of forensic psychiatric experts issued a report repeating their previous conclusions as to P.’s mental state. 17. On 8 June 2011 the first-instance court found that P. had committed a crime by violating the traffic safety regulations, which had resulted in the death of the applicant’s son and the two other passengers. The court noted that P. had collided with a pillar because he had exceeded the speed limits and had lost control of the car. It further noted that, according to the forensic psychiatric examination reports of 10 July 2007 and 28 February 2011, P. had been mentally aware of and able to control his actions at the time of the accident but had later developed a mental disability; at the time of the examinations, P. had been suffering from an organic brain impairment and amnestic syndrome; as a result, he had no longer been aware of or able to control his actions and needed to be provided with compulsory medical treatment, namely outpatient psychiatric assistance. Bearing those medical reports in mind, the court ordered the compulsory medical measures. 18. The applicant appealed, claiming that he was a doctor by profession and could see that the medical findings were wrong. He further complained of a breach of procedural rules, arguing that P. should have been brought to the court room for the hearings. 19. On 24 January 2012 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 8 June 2011 and remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation. The court noted that there were witness statements, including those obtained at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, which suggested that at the time of the accident P. might have made a sharp turn in order to avoid hitting a pedestrian who had been crossing the road. The court considered that the facts had not been established properly and that additional investigatory measures were required. 20. Following the additional investigation, the case was referred to the first-instance court on 31 October 2012. The investigative authorities considered that P. had exceeded the speed limit, in violation of the traffic regulations; he had lost control of the car and caused the accident which had resulted in the deaths of his three passengers. P.’s actions amounted to a crime. However, due to the mental disability that he had developed after the accident, it was proposed that the court impose compulsory medical measures in respect of P. 21. As of 26 March 2013 the proceedings were pending.

{'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 1983 and is currently detained in Moscow. 7. Until 2011 the applicant lived with his wife and three children in Urgut in the Republic of Uzbekistan. 8. According to the applicant, in July 2011 a friend with whom he used to “discuss religious topics” was arrested. Shortly thereafter several plain-clothed officers searched the applicant’s apartment, taking away a number of his books. Shortly afterwards the applicant left Uzbekistan and moved to Moscow, where he apparently lost his passport soon after arriving. 9. On 1 February 2012 the Uzbek authorities charged the applicant with attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Islamic organisation banned both in Uzbekistan and Russia which calls for the overthrow of non-Islamic governments and the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. On the same day the applicant was put on the wanted list. 10. On 2 February 2012 the Samarkand Town Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant in absentia against the applicant, citing the above charges. 11. On 17 April 2013 the Russian police, acting pursuant to the warrant of 2 February 2012, arrested the applicant in Moscow. 12. The next day a public prosecutor interviewed the applicant regarding his background and the circumstances of his arrival in Moscow. The applicant submitted that he was aware of the charges laid against him by the Uzbek authorities and had crossed into Russia in order to avoid prosecution and find a job. It was specifically noted in the interview record that the applicant had no passport on him. 13. On 19 April 2013 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, referring to the charges against the applicant in Uzbekistan and the absence of a registered residence and a job in Russia, authorised the applicant’s detention pending extradition until 17 May 2013. No appeal was lodged against that detention order. 14. On 13 May 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan submitted an extradition request. It included diplomatic assurances that the applicant would not be charged with any further crimes or handed over to a third State without the Russian authorities’ consent. It also contained assurances that the applicant would be afforded a fair trial and provided with legal aid and the necessary medical assistance, and that he would not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. 15. Following receipt of the above request, on 17 May 2013 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending extradition until 17 October 2013 referring to the same grounds as in the order of 19 April 2013, and noting in addition that the applicant had absconded from the Uzbek authorities. The applicant did not appeal against the extension order. 16. It appears that the extradition proceedings are still pending before the competent Russian authorities. 17. On 17 October 2013 a deputy prosecutor requested the Moscow police to check whether the applicant’s stay in Russia complied with the relevant legislation. Among other things he enquired as to “the date of the actual expulsion [of the applicant] from [the territory of] the Russian Federation and the date of his actual handing over to the competent authorities of the Republic of Uzbekistan”. 18. On the same day the applicant was taken to a prosecutor’s office, where the deputy prosecutor ordered his release as the time-limit for his detention pending extradition had expired. Immediately upon release the applicant was brought to a police station, where he was charged with an infringement of the Russian immigration legislation (an administrative offence punishable by expulsion) and arrested again. An administrative detention order and an administrative violation report were drafted there and then. In addition to those documents, the applicant gave a written statement entitled “Explanations”, which reads as follows: “In 2011 I left the Republic of Uzbekistan because I was being prosecuted on grounds of my religious beliefs. I consider that the opening of this administrative case is unlawful because ... an administrative violation report must be drafted immediately after an infringement has been established. That infringement was established [by the authorities] at the time of my arrest on 17 April 2013. ... My [administrative] removal to Uzbekistan would mean that I would be handed over to the authorities of that country, which would infringe my right not to be subjected to torture and violate the absolute prohibition of expulsion of persons who are at risk of torture. Furthermore, I consider the opening of the administrative case to be unlawful as the proceedings regarding my extradition to Uzbekistan are pending at the present time... The purpose of the administrative detention is to hand me over to the Uzbek authorities and in the event of my expulsion I would actually end up in Uzbekistan. Accordingly, my deprivation of liberty does not serve a legal aim. I would like to point out that the decision to return me to the Republic of Uzbekistan would irreparably infringe my rights as guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I am being prosecuted in Uzbekistan on grounds of my [religious] beliefs, [therefore] I am a member of a vulnerable group for whom the risk of torture is particularly high.” 19. On 18 October 2013 the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow examined the above charges. During the hearing the applicant acknowledged that he had violated the immigration rules, but claimed that an administrative removal would amount to an actual extradition in the present case, because he would be handed over to the Uzbek authorities in any event. He referred to the high risk of ill-treatment and cited international reports (in particular, a report which was submitted to the District Court by the Russian office of the UNHCR and specifically stated that the applicant’s return to the country of his origin would violate his rights under international law) and the Article 3 case-law of the Court regarding extraditions to Uzbekistan. Without any assessment of these allegations, the District Court found the applicant guilty of infringing the immigration legislation, sentenced him to a fine and ordered his administrative removal from Russia. Pending expulsion, he was to be detained in the Moscow Centre for Detention of Foreign Nationals. The applicant appealed, reiterating his allegations of the risk of ill-treatment, noting that his expulsion would be unlawful as the examination of his application for refugee status (see below) was still under way, and that his detention pending expulsion would violate Article 5 of the Convention as the expulsion order had set no time-limits and no periodic judicial review of his detention was possible. 20. On 22 November 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the first-instance judgment. Like the District Court, it did not analyse the applicant’s arguments about the risk of ill-treatment. As to the refugee-status proceedings, the City Court noted: “Notwithstanding the applicant’s position, his application for asylum in Russia and the examination of his request [for refugee status] under the relevant legal procedure do not affect [the existence of] the actus reus of the administrative offence [committed by the applicant]. Besides, as can be seen from the reply to the Moscow City Court judge’s request on 14 October 2013 Mr Khalikov’s request for asylum was rejected.” 21. On 1 July 2013 the applicant lodged a request seeking refugee status. In the same terms as in the aforementioned expulsion proceedings, he referred to the risk of being tortured and cited international reports and the Article 3 case-law of the Court regarding extraditions to Uzbekistan. 22. On 14 October 2013 the Moscow branch of the Federal Migration Service rejected the application and on 9 December 2013 the Federal Migration Service upheld that decision. On 18 January 2014 the applicant challenged the refusal before the courts. 23. On 20 March 2014 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow found that the applicant had not produced sufficient evidence of the risk of persecution and dismissed his appeal. The court found that the applicant “was not being prosecuted, had no criminal record and did not hold membership of any political, religious, [or] military organisations”. It further observed that the acts the applicant was charged with were also criminal under Russian criminal law. The District Court observed that the applicant had applied for asylum only after his arrest in Russia rather than immediately after arriving in Russia. The applicant appealed to the Moscow City Court. 24. On 28 July 2014 the Moscow City Court, relying on essentially the same reasons as the District Court, upheld the first-instance judgment on appeal. The text of the appeal judgment did not mention the applicant’s arguments regarding the risk of ill-treatment or assess that risk, but rather stated that the applicant was afraid of being “subjected to a[n] [allegedly] fabricated prosecution for the religious convictions imputable to him” in the event of his return to Uzbekistan.

{'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 1985 and is currently in detention at HMP Leyhill. 6. He was convicted of offences of sexual activity with a child and breach of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. In May 2007 he received an indeterminate sentence for public protection (“IPP sentence”). A minimum term (“tariff”) of eighteen months was fixed. 7. He was initially detained at HMP Preston and was transferred to HMP Albany in October 2007. Between December 2007 and April 2008 he incurred seven adjudications for failure to obey or comply with orders and regulations and one adjudication for destroying property. He also underwent assessment of his suitability for a sex offender treatment programme. 8. On 11 January 2008 the applicant was informed of his suitability for the adapted Sex Offender Treatment Programme (“adapted SOTP”). As this was not offered at HMP Albany it was recommended that he transfer to a suitable establishment. 9. On 3 February 2008 the applicant wrote to the National Probation Service (“NPS”) seeking a transfer to another prison to undertake the adapted SOTP. By letter dated 8 February 2008 the NPS Service replied: “I have today spoken to your offender supervisor... I have asked him to try and speed up a transfer for you so that you can at least undertake the adapted SOTP, which you should be suitable for. He says that the only CAT B prison that does this is HMP Hull, but he will try and get you transferred there to do it if possible.” 10. The applicant subsequently complained to HMP Albany on various dates about the failure to transfer him. He was informed that a suitable establishment was being sought. 11. On 5 June 2008 the applicant completed the Enhanced Thinking Skills (“ETS”) course. 12. In around November 2008 the applicant’s tariff expired. 13. In February 2009 a Parole Board Review took place. The Parole Board decided on the papers that the applicant should remain in detention. The Board noted that the applicant had completed the ETS course and would be assessed for, and if found suitable, complete a sex offenders treatment programme. 14. Subsequent correspondence with the Ministry of Justice refers to long prison waiting lists for access to the adapted SOTP and delays in processing applications for prison transfer. 15. By letter dated 3 September 2009 the Secretary of State informed the applicant that he agreed with the Parole Board February 2009 recommendation. He indicated that the applicant was to be assessed for and complete the adapted SOTP. A provisional hearing before the Parole Board was fixed for March 2011. 16. Meanwhile, the applicant was again assessed for suitability for a sex offenders treatment programme. By letter dated 23 October 2009 he was informed that he would be most likely to benefit from the Becoming New Me course (“SOTP BNM”), the replacement for the adapted SOTP. 17. On 24 November 2010 the applicant was transferred to HMP Bure. 18. On 23 December 2010 a Parole Board review took place. 19. On 4 January 2011 the Parole Board notified the applicant of its decision not to direct his release or to recommend his transfer to open conditions. It observed that since his last review the applicant had undertaken training courses in assertiveness skills, understanding the cause of conflict/domestic violence, understanding the boundaries of respectability in relation to children, alcohol awareness and unlocking financial capability. It noted the positive change in his attitude but considered that his risk remained high. It confirmed that he would be required to complete the adapted SOTP prior to release. It concluded: “[We] shared your concern at the fact you have so far been unsuccessful in your attempts to secure a referral to the courses identified as targets on your sentence plan and that furthermore you have recently been moved to a prison that does not run these programmes. However, prisoner location is an operational matter which sits outside of the Parole Board’s remit and is for the prison service and your offender manager to resolve. What does this mean however, is that you remain an untreated sex offender who is unable to demonstrate that the risk you pose has reduced sufficiently to be manageable in the community.” 20. By letter dated 28 March 2011, the Secretary of State agreed with the Parole Board’s recommendation. He referred to the need to complete the SOTP BNM. The applicant’s review period was set at eighteen months consisting of: “ Three months transfer and settling in period in a new establishment  Three months assessment for the Becoming New Me programme  Six months to complete the Becoming New programme  Six months to complete the post Becoming New Me programme report (SARN).” 21. The next parole review was therefore scheduled to commence in January 2012 with the target date for the oral hearing being July 2012. 22. On 8 July 2011 the applicant was transferred to HMP Wymott on his own request on compassionate grounds to be closer to his father, who was unwell. He subsequently asked to remain at HMP Wymott and to be given a place on the SOTP BNM course scheduled to commence in September 2011. As that course was already full, the applicant was informed that he could, if he wished, await the next course to be delivered at HMP Wymott in August/September 2012, for which he would be a priority. 23. On 7 September 2011 the applicant’s representatives wrote to the Governor of HMP Bure and HMP Wymott notifying them that judicial review proceedings were being contemplated against them and the Secretary of State. They sought confirmation that the SOTP BNM course would be made available to the applicant. 24. By letter dated 1 November 2011 HMP Wymott replied in the following terms: “I acknowledge that your client’s initial transfer to HMP Wymott was on compassionate grounds ... The fact that Mr Taylor elected not to return to HMP Bure is a factor that must be considered when determining whether or not his progress through the prison service has been slow ... Although, I would argue that the prompt intervention of his newly appointed Offender Supervisor and the attempts he made to source a suitable course at HMP Wymott would indicate that HMP Wymott were not at fault for any delays to your client’s progress. Your client is known to our Programmes team, is in the assessment process and his post tariff status will ensure that he is prioritised accordingly for the next BNM courses which should be delivered from approximately August/September 2012.” 25. The prison offered to facilitate a transfer to another prison where the applicant might be able to access the SOTP BNM more speedily. He chose to remain at HMP Wymott to await a place on the SOTP BNM there. 26. On 25 April 2012 a Parole Board review took place on the papers. The Board decided not to direct the applicant’s release or recommend his transfer to open conditions. It concluded: “You committed serious index offending, which targeted a vulnerable victim ... The panel was also concerned that, at a young age, you already had a conviction record that included previous violent and sexual offending against vulnerable female victims. It is to your credit that you have some understanding of the risk you pose, and that you are motivated to undertake work to address your sexual offending behaviour. However, you have yet to undertake this work. The panel is also concerned that you have a history of breaching trust and reoffending despite measures being put in place to contain your risk ...” 27. By letter dated 5 July 2012 the Secretary of State indicated that he agreed with the Parole Board recommendation. He confirmed the SOTP BNM as an appropriate course to reduce the applicant’s risk of reoffending. The next review was scheduled to commence in April 2013 and to be concluded by December 2013. 28. The applicant commenced the SOTP BNM as planned on 23 August 2012 and completed it on 2 February 2013. 29. A further Parole Board review took place on 26 February 2014. The Board decided not to direct the applicant’s release, but recommended his transfer to open conditions.

{'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 1987 and lives in Chişinău. 6. The applicant was arrested on 19 July 2010 on charges of trafficking in human beings and held in detention on remand in Prison No. 13 in Chișinău until 15 March 2011.[1] According to her, the conditions of detention were very poor. In particular, the applicant alleged that the cells were overcrowded, dirty and cold, with no access to daylight or fresh air, no bedding, very poor quality food, showers only once a week, only cold water, and clothes had to be washed and dried in the cell. 7. The relevant parts of the Special Rapporteur’s report on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment compiled following his visit to Moldova from 4 to 11 July 2008 (The United Nations Human Rights Council, document A/HRC/10/44/Add.3, 12 February 2009) read: “B. Conditions in places of detention Institutions under the Ministry of Justice 30. Undoubtedly, progress has been achieved in improving conditions of detention. However, some of the institutions visited by the Special Rapporteur were heavily overcrowded. The authorities themselves pointed out that Institution No. 13 in Chişinău was severely overcrowded - on the day of the visit it held 931 persons with the official capacity being 600 (see also appendix). The Special Rapporteur was informed of Government plans to close down this institution. 31. Common problems at all pre- and post-trial prisons are the poor hygienic conditions, restricted access to health care and lack of medication as well as risk of contamination with tuberculosis and other diseases. Whereas the Special Rapporteur notes that the minimum norms regarding nutrition of detainees (Government Decision no. 609 of 29 May 2006) are checked on a daily basis and that, according to the financial plan of the Penitentiary Department, the food budget for 2008 had almost doubled in comparison to 2004 and is set to rise further, he also received consistent allegations regarding the poor quality and quantity of food. ...” 15. In its report for 2009 (page 117 – “Conditions of detention”), the Centre for Human Rights in Moldova (“the Human Rights Centre”, which also acts as the Moldovan Ombudsman) found, inter alia, that: “Regarding personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, despite [the fact that] Government decision no. 609 (29 May 2006) concerning minimum daily food requirements and the issuing of items of personal hygiene provides for the issuing of soap to detainees for bathing and other sanitary-hygienic needs, this has remained unfulfilled during 2009.” 8. In its report for 2009 (page 117 – “Conditions of detention”), the Centre for Human Rights in Moldova (“the Human Rights Centre”, which also acts as the Moldovan Ombudsman) found, inter alia, that: “Regarding personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, despite [the fact that] Government decision no. 609 (29 May 2006) concerning minimum daily food requirements and the issuing of items of personal hygiene provides for the issuing of soap to detainees for bathing and other sanitary-hygienic needs, this has remained unfulfilled during 2009.” 9. In its report for 2010 (page 142 et seq. – “Conditions of detention”) the Human Rights Centre found, inter alia, that: “Failure to adhere to the statutory cell size (4 square metres per person) in the living blocks of the institution has become an unpleasant problem which now affects the prison system across the entire country. ... The same situation was confirmed during a visit to Chişinău Prison no. 13 in on 9 September 2010. In some cells the living space was not proportionate to the number of detainees. During the visit, eight detainees were being held in cell no. 38, which measured 24 square metres. This situation has been seen repeatedly during visits by the Centre’s staff to the Chişinău Pre-trial Detention Centre. Similar findings were made during visits to Rusca Prison no. 7 on 19 May 2010, where six detainees were being held in a cell measuring 15.5 square metres and to Cricova Prison no. 4, where (in living block no. 7) over twenty detainees were being held in a cell measuring 65 square metres. Overcrowding comes directly within the Ombudsman’s remit as part of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture, which on many occasions has recognised overcrowding in the country’s prisons. ... ... [T]he Prisons Department informed the Ombudsman that meat and fish products are provided [to detainees] whenever possible. At the same time, the authority stated that, owing to the difficult financial situation, during 2010 the detainees in Rezina Prison no. 17 received only 75% and 80% of their normal quotas of meat and fish products respectively. In this connection, the Minister of Justice provided information to the Ombudsman about the expenditure on prisoners’ food in 2010. The cost amounted to MDL 24.05 million, whereas the budgetary need for the same year was, according to the Ministry of Finance’s draft budget, MDL 29.05 million. The daily cost of feeding a detainee in 2010 was MDL 10.24, whilst the daily budgetary need was MDL 12.35. This statistic was often cited by prison authorities to justify why they were unable to provide detainees with meat and fish. ... As regards sanitary conditions, lighting and ventilation problems continue to exist in the majority of living blocks in Moldovan prisons, with the exception of Taraclia Prisons no. 1 and Rusca Prison no. 7. The Republic of Moldova inherited old gulag-type prisons in dilapidated buildings, corresponding to former Soviet standards. The prisons do not conform to current national and international standards; however, the budget constraints upon the State do not allow for their reconstruction or renovation. In the prisons, with the exception of Taraclia Prison no. 1, detainees are held in large-capacity cells insufficiently equipped for their daily needs, namely areas for sleeping, for everyday living and for sanitary equipment. Detainees are held in extremely overcrowded, dark, damp and unventilated spaces full of cigarette smoke. In certain prisons the bunk beds essentially prevent daylight from reaching the living space.”

{'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 1987 and currently lives in Skierniewice. 7. On 5 January 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He was subsequently charged with three counts of similar offences. On 7 January 2007 the Warsaw District Court remanded the applicant in custody. 8. On an unspecified later date the applicant was additionally charged with the sexual abuse of a minor and with having recorded a pornographic image of the minor (Article 200 § 1 of the Criminal Code). 9. On 21 December 2007 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court comprising all the above charges. The courts gave a number of subsequent decisions prolonging the applicant’s detention on remand. 10. On 14 August 2008 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. It banned the applicant from any position, profession or activity related to the taking care of minors for a period of fifteen years. The court further imposed a five‑year order preventing the applicant from frequenting any places or institutions connected with the care or education of minors. 11. The applicant appealed. On 6 May 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. 12. On 26 August 2009 the applicant’s legal-aid counsel informed the Regional Court that he had found no grounds to lodge a cassation appeal in the case. 13. On 24 August 2007 the applicant was admitted to the Warsaw‑Mokotów Detention Centre in order to undergo a psychiatric examination. He remained there until 24 October 2007. 14. Between 31 August and 12 October 2007 the applicant was placed in the psychiatric wing of the Warsaw-Mokotów Remand Centre. 15. According to the applicant, between 7 and 10 September 2007 (Friday afternoon until Monday morning) he was abused by two of his fellow inmates (T.G. and P.O.). They attempted to rape him with a broom stick and unsuccessfully ordered a third inmate (J.C.) to insert his penis in the applicant’s mouth. The inmates poured cold water over the applicant who was lying in bed, spat on him and scrubbed his head with a toilet brush. They further abused him verbally and threatened to kill him. 16. The applicant attempted to alert the staff of the Remand Centre about the incident, but to no avail. In the morning of 10 September 2007 (Monday) he reported the incident to a doctor and was quickly moved to a different cell. 17. On 12 September 2007 the Governor of the Warsaw-Mokotów Remand Centre ordered an inquiry into the incident. On 20 September 2007 a report was presented to the Governor. The inquiry established that between 7 and 9 September 2007 the applicant had been ill-treated by two of his fellow inmates (T.G. and P.O.). The inquiry found that they had held his arms and had urged another inmate J.C. (suffering from a mental disability) to strip off in front of the applicant. The applicant had been threatened with sexual abuse. Furthermore, T.G. and P.O. had spat on the applicant, poured water over him, hit him with a broom stick and forced J.C. to touch his head with a toilet brush. They had threatened to kill the applicant if he reported the incident. 18. The applicant was held in cell no. 6 which was equipped with a CCTV camera and was located opposite the nurses’ room. 19. As regards the causes of the incident, the inquiry established that the fellow inmates had probably learnt that the applicant had been suspected of the sexual abuse of a minor. Furthermore, it was established that the applicant had proposed a sexual act to inmate T.G. in exchange for food, had attempted to touch his genitals at night and to touch his bottom in the shower room. The applicant denied this. 20. The inquiry found no shortcomings on the part of the prison guards and medical staff. Furthermore, it was established that the applicant had not reported the abuse immediately after it had occurred. Once he had reported the incident, the prison staff had taken swift action. 21. On 12 September 2007 the applicant was seen by a doctor who established the presence of yellow-brown marks subsequent to haematomas on his legs. They caused impairment of the applicant’s health lasting not longer than seven days. 22. The inquiry concluded that the applicant had been subjected to ill‑treatment. However, the ill-treatment had not been of a significant degree and had been mostly of a psychological nature. The Governor of the Remand Centre imposed on P.O. a disciplinary penalty of 1 month ban on shopping in a remand centre shop. He imposed on T.G. a disciplinary penalty of a 3 month ban on receiving food parcels. 23. On 10 September 2007 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Warsaw-Mokotów District Prosecution Office, alleging that he had been ill-treated by fellow inmates. 24. On 28 September 2007, following the conclusions of the internal inquiry, the Governor of the Remand Centre notified the same Prosecution Office that an offence of ill-treatment had been committed. 25. On 1 October 2007 the Warsaw‑Mokotów District Prosecutor transferred the case for inquiry to the Warsaw II District Police Station (case no. 1 Ds 907/07/V). On 31 October 2007 the police opened an inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment of a person deprived of liberty (Article 247 § 1 of the Criminal Code). The applicant was not notified about the opening of the inquiry. On 20 January 2008 he complained to a superior prosecutor about this fact. On 11 February 2008 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor acknowledged in a decision that the applicant had not been notified about any decision taken by the District Prosecutor in respect of his criminal complaint filed on 10 September 2007. 26. On 24 December 2007 the Warsaw‑Mokotów District Junior Prosecutor (asesor prokuratury rejonowej) decided to open an investigation into the allegation of the applicant’s ill-treatment and sexual abuse (Articles 207 § 1 and 197 § 2 of the Criminal Code respectively) in the framework of the original investigation. He transferred the case to the Warsaw II District Police Station for further investigation and notified the applicant thereof. 27. On 21 March 2008 the police interviewed D.D., a prison guard who was on duty on 9 September 2007. He stated that no prisoner from cell no. 6 had complained to him about ill-treatment and that he had not noticed anything on the CCTV monitoring. 28. A.S., who was the applicant’s fellow inmate at the material time, was interviewed by the police on 27 March 2008. He stated that T.G., P.O. and J.C. had ill-treated the applicant. They had held the applicant and J.C. had moved his penis near the applicant’s head. According to A.S., P.O. had also tried to rape the applicant with a broom stick. 29. T.G. and P.O. were interviewed by the police on 27 and 28 March 2008 respectively. They stated that they had teased the applicant because he had not washed himself, had funny ears and had been making indecent proposals to T.G. They denied that they had ill-treated the applicant. 30. On 28 March 2008 the Warsaw II District Police Station discontinued the investigation into the allegation of physical and psychological ill-treatment of the applicant who had been deprived of liberty (Article 247 § 1 of the CC). It found that there was insufficient evidence to justify the suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed (brak danych dostatecznie uzasadniających podejrzenie popełnienia czynu zabronionego). The reasons for the discontinuation read as follows: “In the course of the investigation carried out in the above case concerning an offence specified in article 247 § 1 CC witnesses to the event were heard, namely A.S. and the employees of the Remand Centre in respect of the events alleged by M.C. [the applicant]. P.O. and T.G. were also heard as witnesses and they commented on the issues alleged by M.C. [the applicant] in his complaint; however they denied that they had ill-treated the latter. A number of other acts were also undertaken; however they did not yield sufficient information to justify the suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed ...” 31. On 31 March 2008 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Junior Prosecutor confirmed the decision to discontinue the investigation. 32. The applicant appealed to the District Court. He claimed that the prosecutor had disregarded evidence indicating that he had been ill-treated, namely the conclusions of the inquiry carried out by the Governor of the Remand Centre, statements of the direct witness, A.S., and his injuries. He also pointed out that the prosecutor had failed to examine evidence recorded by CCTV. In a supplement to his appeal, the applicant asserted that the reason for his abuse was the fact that he had been charged with a sexual offence involving a minor. He also denied that he had made indecent proposals to T.G. 33. On 22 October 2008 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court upheld the decision to discontinue the investigation. It confirmed the prosecutor’s finding that there had been insufficient evidence warranting the suspicion that an offence under Article 247 § 1 of the CC had been committed. Regardless of the reasons for the discontinuation, the court noted that the alleged acts could not be classified as ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 247 § 1 of the CC since this provision required a series of repeated acts which caused significant physical pain or moral suffering to the victim. 34. The court found that the alleged treatment between 7 and 10 September 2007 had neither been lengthy nor continuous. Moreover, no serious injuries had been detected except for bruising falling under Article 157 § 2 of the CC, and the actions of the perpetrators had been limited to acts degrading the applicant. Those acts fell within the scope of privately‑prosecutable offences specified in Article 217 § 1 of the CC (breach of personal inviolability) or 157 § 2 of the CC (causing light bodily injuries) but could not be classified as ill-treatment. Lastly, the court noted that the inmates had been disciplined and that the applicant could file a private bill of indictment against them. The decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 31 October 2008. 35. In January 2009 the applicant filed a criminal complaint, alleging that the penitentiary officials had committed an offence of neglecting their duties under Article 231 of the Criminal Code. On 29 January 2009 the applicant was interviewed by the Warsaw-Mokotów District Prosecutor. On the same day the prosecutor refused to open an investigation in the case. 36. Following the notification of the application to the respondent Government, on 3 October 2011 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Prosecutor resumed the criminal investigation. The prosecutor had also regard to the findings made in the civil proceedings instituted by the applicant against the State Treasury and the perpetrators of the abuse (see paragraphs 45-48 below). 37. On 6 April 2012 the prosecutor charged P.O. and T.G. with the commission of an offence under Article 247 § 1 of the Criminal Code in that they had physically and psychologically ill-treated the applicant between 7 and 10 September 2007. 38. On 29 June 2012 the District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation against the perpetrators of the alleged abuse on the ground of ne bis in idem, i.e. that criminal proceedings in respect of the same acts against the same persons had been finally terminated (Article 17 § 1 (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). He referred to the decision of the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court of 4 November 2010 which finally terminated the proceedings against P.O. and T.G. initiated by the applicant’s private bill of indictment (see paragraph 43 below). 39. The prosecutor further found that no criminal offence had been committed by the employees of the detention centre in respect of their alleged negligence in supervising the inmates of the impugned cell. He noted that the cell had been monitored by the CCTV but no recordings had been made. Furthermore, the impugned ill-treatment consisted of a few individual acts that took place over the period of less than four days. The prosecutor noted that the applicant informed his warden about the abuse only on the fourth day (10 September 2007). Immediately after that he was transferred to another cell and provided with medical care. He concluded that at the material time the employees of the remand centre had no grounds to assume that the applicant had been subjected to physical or psychological violence because neither the applicant nor other inmates had reported such a fact to them. The prosecutor accordingly discontinued the investigation in this part as well. The applicant’s lawyer appealed. 40. On 17 January 2013 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision. No further appeal lay against that decision. 41. On 12 January 2009 the applicant filed a private bill of indictment against P.O. and T.G. with the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court. He alleged that they had physically and psychologically ill-treated him between 7 and 10 September 2007. The applicant accused them of having breached his personal inviolability under Article 217 § 1 of the Criminal Code and of having caused him light bodily injuries under Article 157 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The court appointed a legal-aid lawyer for the applicant. 42. On 24 April 2009 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court discontinued the proceedings against P.O. and T.G. on the ground of ne bis in idem (Article 17 § 1 (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). It held that a different legal classification of the same acts adopted by the prosecutor or by a private prosecutor had been irrelevant in the case of discontinuation based on the lack of sufficient evidence of a criminal offence. This decision was quashed on appeal. In two subsequent decisions, the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court discontinued the private prosecution proceedings on the ground of the expiry of the limitation period and on the ground of ne bis in idem respectively. These two decisions were quashed on appeal. 43. In the final and fourth decision of 4 November 2010 the Warsaw‑Mokotów District Court discontinued the proceedings on the basis of the expiry of the limitation period (Article 17 § 1 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). On 22 February 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision to discontinue the proceedings on that ground. 44. In relation to the alleged ill-treatment the applicant sued the State Treasury (the relevant detention centre) and the two alleged perpetrators. 45. In May 2009 the applicant brought a civil action against the State Treasury for infringement of his personal rights (health, privacy, inviolability and dignity) under Articles 24 and 448 of the Civil Code. He sought, inter alia, 80,000 PLN (20,000 EUR) in compensation for the infringement, claiming that the defendant had failed to ensure his safety in detention. 46. The case was heard by the Warsaw Regional Court which established the following facts. The applicant was remanded in custody on 9 January 2007. In August 2007 he was admitted to the Warsaw‑Mokotów Detention Centre in order to undergo a psychiatric examination (obserwacja psychiatryczna). After a certain delay, the applicant was placed in a 9‑person cell in the psychiatric wing of the Remand Centre. It was so‑called “observation cell” for detainees who just arrived in the psychiatric wing and which remained under particular supervision. The cell was located opposite the nurses’ room and was equipped with a CCTV camera which enabled the warden to monitor the situation in the cell. The situation in the cell was normal until the arrival of inmate P.O. From this time, P.O. together with inmate T.G. started abusing the applicant. They poured cold water over him, hit him with a brush stick, and struck him in the face with a mop causing bruises, haematomas and abrasions. P.O. and T.G. told the applicant that a person like him had no rights and ordered him to clean the cell, sit in the corner and follow their orders. They also poured water on the applicant’s bed, his blanket and tattooed a dot on his left arm. Furthermore, P.O. and T.G. held the applicant’s arms and using the mental disability of another inmate (J.C.) persuaded the latter to show his penis just in front of the applicant’s face and tried to force the applicant to have oral sex. These events began on Friday 7 September 2007 and lasted until Monday 10 September 2007. In the course of check-ups carried during this period of time the applicant requested both a doctor on duty and a warden on duty to speak to them urgently and in private. The doctor on duty refused to speak to the applicant and advised him to see his doctor on Monday. The warden also refused to speak to the applicant. On Monday morning another inmate from the cell, A.S. reported to the doctor the events of the last weekend. The applicant was immediately called to the doctor and recounted him the events. The applicant was then quickly moved to another 3-person cell which was occupied by two detainees charged with offences similar to those of the applicant’s. 47. On 3 March 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. The court held that the personal rights of the applicant had been infringed. The State Treasury did not refute this fact but argued that the internal inquiry had not showed any negligence on the part of the prison guards or medical personnel and that the applicant had allegedly not immediately reported the events. The court held that every person detained in prison or remand centre should be treated in a manner respecting his or her dignity. However, in the applicant’s case, his dignity was violated by allowing his inmates to subject him to degrading treatment over the period of three days while the wardens failed to react to these events. The events occurred notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had been placed in an “observation cell” which was designed to monitor and react to inappropriate behaviour of inmates. In these circumstances, the State Treasury was liable for the infringement of the applicant’s personal rights resulting from the negligence of the employees of the remand centre since despite the CCTV monitoring of the cell, the applicant’s requests for a private conversation, his wet bed and his external injuries none of the wardens or members of the medical personnel had reacted. The court found unproven the State Treasury’s assertion that the applicant had not informed the personnel about his abuse. The State Treasury was under a duty to ensure the applicant’s safety in the cell, in particular as it disposed of the relevant instruments to this effect such as the CCTV monitoring. 48. With regard to the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damages, the court considered it excessive and disproportionate to the degree of the infringement of his personal rights. It noted that the award of non-pecuniary damage should on one hand constitute a significant hardship for a person responsible for the infringement and afford satisfaction to the claimant, but on the other hand it could not lead to a significant enrichment of the claimant. In the court’s view, the award of the full amount sought by the applicant would have led to his significant enrichment given his personal and professional achievements so far. The court awarded the applicant 3,000 PLN (EUR 750) which it considered adequate, having regard, inter alia, to the degree of the harm, the duration of the ill-treatment, the applicant’s personal circumstances etc. It noted that the applicant had claimed to have suffered a psychological harm but did not substantiate this claim. 49. The applicant’s lawyer appealed, seeking higher award. He argued that PLN 3,000 was not a significant amount for the defendant. On 12 December 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment. No further appeal lay against the judgment. 50. In the civil proceedings against the first of the alleged abusers (T.G.) the parties settled the case. Under the terms of the settlement T.G. agreed to pay 1,250 PLN (about 300 EUR) to the applicant. 51. In the civil case against the second of the alleged abusers (P.O.) the courts found for the applicant. On 17 July 2012 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court held the P.O. had infringed the personal rights of the applicant (his dignity, health and personal inviolability) and awarded him 2,500 PLN in compensation (EUR 600). On 20 March 2013 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld this judgment which subsequently became final. 52. On 8 January 2007 the applicant was placed in the Warsaw‑Białołęka Detention Centre. On 24 August 2007 he was admitted to the Warsaw‑Mokotów Detention Centre in order to undergo a psychiatric examination. On 24 October 2007 he returned to the Warsaw-Białołęka Detention Centre. Subsequently, on 21 November 2007 he was transferred to the Warsaw-Służewiec Detention Centre and on 1 October 2008 he returned to the Warsaw-Białołęka Detention Centre. 53. In his appeal of 3 December 2007 against a prolongation of the applicant’s detention, his lawyer informed the courts that the applicant had been assaulted by a prison guard in the Warsaw-Białołęka Remand Centre on 12 August 2007. On 28 December 2007 the Warsaw District Court requested the prosecution service to provide information about the follow‑up to the above complaint. The applicant submitted no further information in this respect. 54. On 25 February 2008 the Warsaw District Court refused to lift the applicant’s detention on remand. It noted that in light of the information obtained from the Warsaw-Służewiec Remand Centre the applicant’s continued detention did not entail a risk to his life or health. 55. On 14 May 2008 the Warsaw District Court requested the Governor of the Warsaw-Służewiec Detention Centre to comment on the applicant’s complaints concerning psychological and physical ill-treatment by his fellow inmates and the prison staff, unfair imposition of disciplinary penalties, including placement in solitary confinement, refusal to allow him to consult a psychologist, and the lack of sufficient food and hygiene products. The court also requested the Governor to provide information on whether the applicant had been placed in a cell with smokers. 56. On 6 June 2008 the Governor replied. He stated that the applicant had not been subjected to ill-treatment and that the administration of the Remand Centre had made the necessary efforts to ensure his safety. Between 22 February and 28 May 2008 the applicant had been disciplined for various breaches of the prison regulations, inter alia, refusal to comply with orders or interference with the execution of orders, refusal to eat meals, aggressive behaviour and possession of tablets. The applicant had numerous consultations with a prison psychologist and a psychiatrist. He received three meals per day in accordance with the relevant regulations as well as necessary hygiene products. The applicant was placed in a non-smoking cell; however in the past he had provided contradictory information as to whether he minded being placed in a smoking cell. 57. On 7 April 2008 the Warsaw District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 4 June 2008. Having regard to the information obtained from the Warsaw-Służewiec Remand Centre, the court found that that establishment could ensure the applicant’s safety. The court made a similar finding in its decisions of 10 July and 8 August 2008. 58. In its decision of 2 July 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s allegations in respect of a risk of ill-treatment from other inmates in the Warsaw-Służewiec Remand Centre. In its decision of 12 August 2008 the Regional Court noted that following reported assaults on the applicant by other prisoners the administration of the remand centre had placed him in a single cell in order to ensure his safety. 59. On 10 July 2008 the Warsaw District Court refused the applicant’s request to release him in connection with his grandfather’s death. On 12 August 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld that decision. 60. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Warsaw District Court that his garden house had been burgled in December 2008. On 15 January 2009 the court requested the Wawer District Police to verify the applicant’s information. 61. The Governor of the Warsaw-Białołęka Remand Centre in his report of February 2009 concerning the applicant stated that inmates housed with the applicant had to be properly selected in view of the nature of the applicant’s offence. 62. On 26 February 2009 the Warsaw District Court refused to release the applicant in order to take care of his ill grandmother. On 11 March 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld that decision. 63. In May 2009 the applicant complained about the conditions at the Warsaw-Białołęka Detention Centre, including the lack of education and sports activities, no possibility to attend religious services, lack of hygiene products and hot water in the cell, power cuts and shared showers. On 25 May 2009 the Governor of the Detention Centre informed the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court that the complaints were ill-founded. The applicant had regular access to various activities and religious services. The penitentiary establishments were not required to provide hot water in cells. Power cuts had been imposed by the Inspectorate of the Prison Service in order to make savings. 64. In reply to his other four complaints, the Governor informed the applicant that the living standards in his cell were adequate and in accordance with the relevant regulations. As to his placement in a cell with smokers, the applicant himself had been inconsistent as to whether he preferred a smoking or a non-smoking cell. As regards the strip search of the applicant and his fellow inmates on 27 April 2009, the Governor informed the applicant that it had been carried out in accordance with the law and with due respect to the prisoners’ dignity. On 21 July 2009 the Warsaw Regional Inspectorate upheld the Governor’s findings. 65. On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to grant him leave from prison in order to take care of his ill grandmother, who was his only relative. He also invoked the need to seek treatment for his epilepsy. On 14 August 2009 the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court, having regard to a report of the court officer, refused his request. It found that the applicant’s grandmother had been under the constant care of doctors, had access to social services and the applicant’s assistance had not been necessary. Further, the court found that the applicant’s illness could be treated in prison. On 6 October 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 66. On 21 December 2009 the applicant complained to the Governor of the Warsaw-Białołęka Detention Centre about, inter alia, the quality of medical care provided in prison. On 21 January 2010 the Governor dismissed his complaints. He noted that the applicant had been regularly seen by doctors. At his request he had been tested for HIV. The applicant was treated for epilepsy and his condition was stable. He had had an electroencephalography in February 2009 and in view of his stable condition there was no need for another similar examination.

{'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 1977 and lives in Sofia. 6. On 19 September 1999 the applicant, then a 22-year-old student, left Sofia for Blagoevgrad in a vehicle with two young men, B.Z. and S.P., and another young woman whom she frequented at the time and whose acquaintance she had made through one of her close friends, H.I. During the journey the two men told her that they intended to “sell” her as a prostitute to people with whom they were in contact in Blagoevgrad, and then to “take her back” after receiving the money. The applicant refused, but was threatened by B.Z. On their arrival at Blagoevgrad the group met a number of people in various cafés in the town; those people were apparently involved in prostitution rings abroad and discussed with B.Z. and S.P. sending the applicant to Greece, Italy or Macedonia to work as a prostitute and her alleged experience in the trade. The applicant was told that three of the men they had met were police officers. The applicant was then taken to a flat where she was held against her will and repeatedly beaten and raped by several men for about 48 hours, following which she managed to escape and found refuge in a neighbouring apartment block where occupants called the police. 7. During her first police interview the applicant attempted to throw herself out of the window and was then admitted to a psychiatric hospital. She subsequently received psychological counselling. 8. A criminal investigation was instituted by the Blagoevgrad District Public Prosecutor’s Office for abduction and false imprisonment; abduction for the purposes of coercing into prostitution; and rape. The applicant identified some of her assailants and two police officers whom the group had met prior to holding her against her will. She stated that the men were part of a criminal gang involved in human trafficking who wanted to force her into prostitution in western Europe. 9. In an order of 19 October 1999 the Blagoevgrad military prosecutor considered that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the two police officers, Z.B. and Y.G., who had been charged with abduction, and discontinued the proceedings against them. The prosecutor observed, in particular, that after initially identifying the police officers, the applicant had not subsequently claimed that they had taken part in her abduction and false imprisonment. The prosecutor’s order was amenable to appeal, but the applicant does not appear to have lodged one. 10. During 1999 and 2000 several people involved were questioned, and an expert medical report was drawn up. The investigation was closed and the case sent to the prosecutor for a decision regarding committal for trial. However, on 12 April 2001 the prosecutor decided to send the case back for further investigation on the grounds that irregularities had been committed and further evidence was required regarding the involvement of H.I. and another individual, G.M. Subsequently the case was returned three more times for further investigation. In an order of 2 November 2001, the prosecutor found that the investigator had failed to carry out any investigative measures since the case had been sent back. He also noted a number of irregularities in the charges against the various defendants, such as wrong dates, inaccurate legal classifications or inconsistencies between the facts set out and the legal classification retained. The prosecutor also noted that the investigation had been carried out in the absence of one of the defendants without a duty lawyer being appointed and that some of the charges had to be amended, to take account, inter alia, of the fact that the applicant had attempted to commit suicide, which was an aggravating circumstance. In an order of 16 October 2002, the prosecutor noted that no measures had been carried out in accordance with his previous decision. In a further order of 12 March 2004, he observed that the instructions given had not been followed in their entirety, and in particular that the charges had not been amended. 11. The investigation was closed again and sent to the prosecutor on l3 November 2005. On 23 December 2005 the prosecutor decided to discontinue the proceedings against H.I. and G.M., who had been prosecuted for abduction for the purposes of coercing into prostitution and incitement to prostitution respectively, on the grounds that the offences had not been made out. On appeal by the applicant, that decision was set aside by the court on 29 March 2006. 12. The investigation was closed in May 2007 and the applicant was served with the investigation file. She then requested that one of the men she had identified from a photo, Y.Y.G., also be charged with rape. Her request was rejected on 7 June 2007 by the district prosecutor, who considered that there was insufficient evidence against him, the applicant’s statement being the only basis for implicating him in the attack. On 26 June 2007 part of the investigation, which concerned the offences of which the applicant accused Y.Y.G. and K.M., was severed from the main proceedings and fresh proceedings brought against persons unknown. On 12 September 2007 the Blagoevgrad appellate prosecutor’s office upheld the decision not to charge Y.Y.G., noting that if new evidence were to emerge, the investigators could bring further charges in the proceedings against persons unknown. On 15 February 2008 those proceedings were stayed, on the ground that the perpetrators had not been identified. 13. On an unspecified date in 2007 seven defendants were committed for trial in the Blagoevgrad District Court on charges of false imprisonment, rape, incitement to prostitution or abduction for the purposes of coercing into prostitution. 14. On 5 December 2007 the applicant sought leave to join the proceedings as a private prosecutor and civil party seeking damages. The court granted the application at a hearing held on 9 May 2008. 15. The Blagoevgrad District Court held 22 hearings. About ten of these were adjourned, mainly because the defendants or witnesses had not been properly summoned. The trial took place in the absence of one of the defendants, S.P., whom the authorities had been unable to find. 16. In a judgment of 27 March 2012, the court convicted L.D. and M.K. of gang rape, aggravated by the fact that the victim had attempted to commit suicide, and false imprisonment with aggravated circumstances. They were sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. B.Z. and S.P. were convicted of abducting the applicant for the purposes of coercing her into prostitution and sentenced to six and four years’ imprisonment respectively. S.D. was convicted of false imprisonment and sentenced to a fine of 3,000 levs (BGN). The court found that the offence of incitement to prostitution for which G.M. was being prosecuted was time-barred in accordance with the absolute limitation period and discontinued the proceedings against him. Lastly, it found H.I. not guilty of abduction for the purposes of coercing into prostitution on the grounds that the offence had not been made out as H.I. had not been present at the material time. The five defendants who had been convicted were ordered to pay the applicant damages, and the claim against the other two defendants was rejected. 17. The five defendants who had been convicted appealed. The applicant appealed only against the part of the judgment concerning S.D., requesting the imposition of a heavier sentence and an increase in the amount awarded in damages. 18. Seven hearings before the Blagoevgrad Regional Court were adjourned on account of the absence of one of the accused or their lawyers. The first hearing on the merits took place on 8 November 2013. As two of the defendants, S.P. and G.M. had not appeared, the court decided to examine the case in their absence. 19. In a final judgment of 11 February 2014, the court set aside S.D.’s conviction and terminated the proceedings against him on the grounds that they had become irrevocably time-barred. It amended the judgment concerning the other defendants: the classification of the offence of which L.D. and M.K. had been convicted was slightly amended and their sentence reduced to five years’ imprisonment. The sentence imposed on B.Z. was reduced to three years’ imprisonment and S.P.’s four-year prison sentence was upheld. 20. The court also reduced the amounts awarded to the applicant in non-pecuniary damages. It awarded the applicant a total amount of BGN 39,000, which was the equivalent of approximately 20,000 euros (EUR), ordering L.D. and M.K. to pay the applicant BGN 15,000 each, and B.Z, S.P. and S.D. to pay her BGN 4,000, BGN 3,000 and BGN 2,000 respectively. 21. During the judicial proceedings the applicant, who was living in Sofia, had to travel to Blagoevgrad on numerous occasions to attend hearings. She was called to the witness stand seven times. According to a medical opinion produced by the applicant, each summons to appear before the court had adversely affected her psychological condition. ... 22. This Convention, which came into force on 1 February 2008 and was ratified by Bulgaria, provides in so far as relevant: Article 4 – Definitions “For the purposes of this Convention: a ‘Trafficking in human beings’ shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;” Article 18 – Criminalisation of trafficking in human beings “Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences the conduct contained in article 4 of this Convention, when committed intentionally.” Article 30 – Court proceedings “In accordance with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular Article 6, each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure in the course of judicial proceedings: a the protection of victims’ private life and, where appropriate, identity; b victims’ safety and protection from intimidation, in accordance with the conditions under its internal law ...” 23. With regard more specifically to court proceedings, the explanatory report to the convention provides as follows: “299. Court proceedings in human-trafficking cases – as often with any serious form of crime – may have unfortunate consequences for the victims: ... 309. Use of audio and video technology for taking evidence and conducting hearings may, as far as possible, avoid repetition of hearings and of some face-to-face contact, thus making court proceedings less traumatic. In recent years, a number of countries have developed the use of technology in court proceedings, if necessary adapting the procedural rules on taking evidence and hearing victims. This is particularly the case with victims of sexual assault. ... 310. In addition to the possible use of audio and video technology for avoiding traumatic or repeat testimony, it should be pointed out that victims can be influenced by the mental pressure of being brought face to face with the accused in the courtroom. To give them proper protection it is sometimes advisable to avoid their being present in court at the same time as the accused and to allow them to testify in another room. Whether it is the accused or the victim who is moved from the courtroom, video links or other video technology can be used to enable the parties to follow the proceedings. Such measures are necessary to spare them any unnecessary stress or disturbance when they give their evidence; the trial therefore has to be organised in such a way as to avoid, as far as possible, any unwelcome influence that might hinder establishing the truth or deter victims and witnesses from making statements.” 24. The Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations, adopted on 30 March 2011, remind the member States of the need to implement measures to eradicate impunity for such violations, be they perpetrated by State officials or authorities or by individuals. This document reads, inter alia, as follows: “When it occurs, impunity is caused or facilitated notably by the lack of diligent reaction of institutions or state agents to serious human rights violations. In these circumstances, faults might be observed within state institutions as well as at each stage of the judicial or administrative proceedings. States are to combat impunity as a matter of justice for the victims, as a deterrent with respect to future human rights violations and in order to uphold the rule of law and public trust in the justice system. ... Combating impunity requires that there be an effective investigation in cases of serious human rights violations. This duty has an absolute character.”

{'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 1973 and 2004 respectively and live in Sofia. 6. The applicants are the widow and the son of Mr Konstantin Dimitrov Dimitrov, who died in December 2003. 7. In 2001, following publications in the media concerning the income of the first applicant and her husband, the Sofia regional public prosecutor’s office opened proceedings against them under Chapter Three of the Citizens’ Property Act (“the CPA”, see paragraphs 23-28 below). In a decision of 23 August 2002 a prosecutor from that office discontinued the proceedings. 8. The prosecutor found, first, that for the period from 1990 to 1992 Mr Dimitrov’s expenditure had exceeded his income, but that in 2002 he had paid the difference to the State budget. Accordingly, there was no ground to pursue the proceedings for that period (section 45 of the CPA, see paragraph 27 below). 9. Next, the prosecutor described the income and the expenditure of the first applicant and Mr Dimitrov for the period from 1993 to 1997, but did not make an explicit finding as to whether she considered their income lawful within the meaning of the CPA. 10. Lastly, analysing the couple’s income and expenditure for the period from 1997 to 2001, the prosecutor concluded that they were equivalent, and that there were no grounds for bringing forfeiture proceedings under the CPA. 11. On an unspecified date the Sofia regional public prosecutor’s office opened new proceedings under Chapter Three of the CPA. On 18 November 2004 it brought an action in the Sofia Regional Court against the two applicants, seeking the forfeiture of two flats, one in Varna and one in Sofia, a garage, an office and a share in a plot of land in Sofia, a holiday house in the Borovets resort and a Toyota Land Cruiser car, all acquired by the first applicant and Mr Dimitrov with income received between 1990 and 1999, which was allegedly “unlawful” within the meaning of section 34 of the CPA (see paragraph 25 below). 12. The Sofia Regional Court gave a judgment on 28 November 2006. It analysed in detail the income received by the first applicant and her husband and their expenditure during the period at issue. Due to the difficulties in making an assessment because of the high inflation of that time, the court relied on expert conclusions, calculating all the amounts in United States dollars (USD). 13. The Regional Court accepted in particular, referring to rent contracts, the tax declaration submitted by the first applicant in 1998 and witness statements by those involved, that in 1997 the first applicant and her husband had received substantial income from farming. 14. On the basis of its calculations, the Regional Court concluded that the couple’s expenditure for the period at issue had exceeded their proved income by approximately USD 40,000, which by virtue of section 34 of the CPA represented “unlawful” income. Accordingly, allowing the action brought before it in part, the Sofia Regional Court ordered the forfeiture of property of that value, namely the flat in Varna, the share in a plot of land in Sofia and approximately one-quarter of the flat in Sofia. 15. Both parties lodged appeals. 16. On 17 March 2008 the second-instance Sofia Court of Appeal gave a judgment. It found that the applicants had not established all the income considered proven by the Regional Court, in particular as concerns the family’s farming business. According to the Court of Appeal it was unacceptable to prove such income on the basis of the evidence presented before the lower court, without any further documents showing, for example, expenditure and revenue received. It also considered unproven two monetary gifts, one of them allegedly made by the first applicant’s parents and the other allegedly received on the occasion of her wedding to Mr Dimitrov in 1997. 17. The Court of Appeal calculated that the expenditure of the first applicant and her husband for the period from 1990 to 1999 had exceeded their income by approximately USD 286,000. It considered further that the properties for which the prosecution authorities sought forfeiture had been acquired with this “unlawful” income, and accordingly ordered the forfeiture of the flats in Sofia and Varna and the office, the garage and the share in a plot of land in Sofia. As to the remaining properties at issue, namely a holiday house in Borovets and a car, given that they had in the meantime been transferred to third parties, the Court of Appeal ordered the applicants to pay their monetary value to the State. 18. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. In a final decision of 28 July 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to accept the appeal for examination. 19. On the basis of the judgment of 17 March 2008, on 28 January 2010 the regional governor of Varna issued a decision declaring the flat in Varna State property. Similar decisions concerning the properties in Sofia were issued by the Sofia regional governor on 27 July and 4 August 2011. Following these decisions the applicants surrendered possession to the State. 20. On 20 July 2010 the applicants paid 178,815 Bulgarian levs (BGN) to the State budget, representing the value of the remaining forfeited properties, namely the holiday house in Borovets and the car, and the court fees and other costs due by them. In the domestic proceedings they had been ordered to pay BGN 14,019.34 in total in fees and other expenses. 21. In 2003 and 2004 the relevant tax authorities carried out probes into the income received by the first applicant and her husband between 1997 and 2002. Their decisions, calculating the income tax due, were given on 23 June and 26 November 2004. 22. In respect of the first applicant the respective decision was partly quashed on 20 June 2007 by the Supreme Administrative 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 1974. 6. In 2003 the applicant, his wife and two children (born in 1992 and 1999) settled in Germany. Between 2003 and 2008 the applicant held various managerial positions in German companies. He was also a co-owner and the president of the limited liability company L., registered in Ukraine. That company was run by a director employed under contract. 7. On 27 May 2005 the applicant sent a request to the official representative of the Ministry of Home Affairs of Ukraine in Frankfurt am Main enquiring whether certain business activities undertaken by the director of company L. had been lawful. 8. By a letter dated 8 July 2005 the applicant was informed that the Ministry of Internal Affairs had not found any wrongdoing on the part of the director. 9. On 14 April 2008 the Kyiv Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with a financial fraud allegedly committed by him in April 2005. The investigator stated that the applicant, as co-owner and president of company L., had concluded an agreement for the sale of a car, had received the payment from the purchaser, but had failed to supply the car; the applicant was assisted by the director of that company who, allegedly, had not been aware of the applicant’s malicious intent. The investigator found that the fraudulent actions of the applicant had been confirmed by both victim and witness statements and also by the documents examined. Among the persons testifying as witnesses concerning the specifics of the business and managerial relationships between the applicant and company L., the investigator also questioned the applicant’s mother, who stated that the applicant had not lived in Ukraine for several years as he and his family had moved to Germany. 10. On 19 April 2008 the investigator decided to put the applicant on the national list of wanted persons, stating that the latter had not lived at the registered place of his residence in Ukraine and his whereabouts were unknown. 11. In November 2008 the applicant arrived in Ukraine on personal business. 12. According to the applicant, on 13 November 2008, when he arrived at the migration service department in Kharkiv to exchange his international travel passport for a new one, he was arrested and escorted to Kyiv. 13. At 1.30 a.m. on 14 November 2008 the applicant was questioned by the investigator in the Shevchenkivskyy District Police Department of Kyiv in connection with the charges against him. The questioning session terminated at 4.17 a.m. in the morning. During the questioning the applicant stated, among other things, that he was temporarily unemployed. 14. At 4.20 a.m. on 14 November 2008 the investigator, relying on Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 (“the CCP”), decided to arrest the applicant for seventy-two hours on suspicion of having committed the crime. He drew up an arrest report citing Article 106 of the CCP concerning the grounds for arresting a person without a court order. 15. On 17 November 2008 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) considered the investigator’s request to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. Relying on Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the District Court found that before taking its decision concerning the application of a preventive measure, it needed to examine in more detail the personality of the applicant, his place of employment and residence, his family status and the risk of his absconding. The court therefore extended the applicant’s preliminary detention to ten days. 16. On 20 November 2008 the investigator instituted another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant and the director of company L. on the grounds that they had obtained a loan from a bank on the basis of forged documents and had later misappropriated these funds. 17. On 24 November 2008 the District Court again examined the investigator’s request to detain the applicant in custody. During the hearing the applicant contended that before his arrest he had not been aware of the criminal proceedings or of the fact that he had been placed on the national list of wanted persons. He argued that the investigator had not served him with a summons. Having deliberated, the court found that there had been no evidence suggesting that the applicant might abscond from justice, obstruct the investigation or continue any criminal activity. It therefore released the applicant. The prosecutor appealed. 18. On the same day, the investigator ‒ relying on Article 151 of the CCP ‒ obtained from the applicant a written undertaking not to abscond from his registered place of residence in Kharkiv, Ukraine. 19. On 27 November 2008 the investigator, relying on Article 178 of the CCP, seized the applicant’s old and new international travel passports. 20. On 4 December 2008 the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal and upheld the decision of 24 November 2008, noting that no evidence had been presented concerning attempts by the applicant to abscond from justice and that the gravity of charges alone did not provide sufficient grounds for detaining the applicant in custody. 21. On 6 May 2009 the applicant complained to the prosecutor on account of his unlawful arrest and detention and the violation of procedural rules by the investigator. He also stated that as a result of the procedural measures undertaken by the investigator he had not been able to see his wife and children, who lived outside Ukraine, nor to pursue his professional life. The applicant did not receive any reply to his complaint. 22. On 6 July 2009 the applicant challenged before the District Court the investigator’s decisions to initiate criminal proceedings against him. 23. On 31 July 2009 the District Court allowed the applicant’s claim, finding that the available evidential material was not sufficient to give rise to criminal proceedings against the applicant. The prosecutor appealed against that decision. 24. On 21 August 2009 the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 31 July 2009 and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration. 25. On 3 November 2009 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the impugned decisions issued by the investigator were lawful. The applicant appealed. 26. On 4 December 2009 the Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 3 November 2009. 27. On 8 December 2011 the investigator closed both sets of criminal proceedings, finding that the charges against the applicant had not been proved and that there had been no corpus delicti. The preventive measure (a written undertaking not to abscond) was lifted. 28. On 9 December 2011 the investigator returned the seized international travel passports to 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 1975, 1987, 1961, 1968, 1973 and 1984, respectively. When introducing the applications, they were detained in prisons in Baracska, Szolnok, Budapest, Sopronkőhida, Pálhalma and Szeged, respectively. 6. On 31 December 2013 the Hungarian prisons accommodated altogether 18,042 inmates (that is, an overcrowding rate of 144 %), out of which 5,053 people were in pre-trial detention. 7. Mr Varga was held at Baracska Prison which, he claimed, was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention lasting from 17 January to 3 September 2011. In particular, the cell in which he was detained measured 30 square metres and accommodated seventeen prisoners (that is, 1.76 square metres gross living space per inmate). The quality and quantity of the food provided were poor, as a result of which he claimed to have lost 20 kilograms. From 4 July 2011 he was kept in solitary confinement for eleven days as a disciplinary measure. He submitted that he was kept in a cell of some eight square metres and in poor sanitary conditions, without adequate running water. This led to problems of hygiene and a skin infection, for which he did not receive adequate treatment. Throughout this confinement he had outdoor stays of only 30 minutes a day. 8. Mr Lakatos was held from 20 January 2011 until an unspecified date in the spring of 2012 at Hajdú-Bihar County Prison in a cell that measured nine square metres and accommodated three inmates including him (that is, three square metres gross living space per inmate). As of spring 2012, he was transferred to Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Prison where he has been held in a cell measuring nine square metres and housing four inmates including him (that is, 2.25 square metres gross living space per inmate). He claimed that at the latter facility there was no ventilation and the toilet was only separated from the living area by a curtain, offering insufficient privacy. 9. Mr Tóth was placed in pre-trial detention on 7 April 2010. On 10 April 2010 he was transferred to Hajdú-Bihar County Prison where he was held until 18 January 2012 in a cell of about ten square metres together with three other detainees (that is, 2.5 square metres gross living space per inmate). Only a curtain was used as a partition between the toilet and the living area. He was subsequently transferred to Budapest Prison (Budapesti Fegyház és Börtön) where the cell in which he was held between 18 January 2012 and 18 January 2014 was about ten square metres in size; he shared it with two other inmates (that is, 3.33 square metres gross living space per inmate). Since 18 January 2014 he has been detained with seven other detainees in a cell measuring 25 square metres (that is, 3.13 square metres gross living space per inmate). He claimed that the toilet is separated only by a curtain from the living area. The bed linen is changed only once every five or six weeks. 10. The applicant started to serve his prison sentence in 2009 at Márianosztra Prison. He shared his cell with eight to ten inmates and the surface available was 25.7 square metres (that is, a maximum of 2.86 square metres gross living space per inmate). On 6 December 2012 he was transferred to Sopronkőhida Prison where his cell measures 6.2 square metres and is occupied by him and another man (that is, 3.1 square metres gross living space per inmate). 11. On 27 October 2011 Mr Fakó was placed in pre-trial detention at Budapest Correctional Facility (Fővárosi Büntetés-végrehajtási Intézet). On 29 April 2013 he was transferred to Pálhalma Prison, where he shared a cell with thirteen other inmates. Without specifying the size of the cell, he submitted that the gross living space per person varied between 1.5 and 2.2 square metres. He had a daily one-hour-long outdoor exercise and spent the remainder of his time in the cell. He submitted that in 2013 the summer temperature in the cell rose to 40˚C because of poor ventilation. He asserted that he was allowed to take a shower once a week for no longer than five minutes each time. Furthermore, the cell was infected with bed bugs, lice and cockroaches, but the prison administration did not address this issue. 12. From 12 December 2006 Mr Kapczár has served his sentence at Szeged Prison. Throughout his detention he has been held in fourteen different cells. The size of those cells was 8, 12 and 24 square metres, respectively. The occupancy rate in the cells measuring 8 square metres was often up to three persons (that is, 2.67 square metres gross living space per inmate). In the cells of 12 square metres the occupancy rate was four persons (that is, 3 square metres gross living space per inmate). In the cells measuring 24 square metres it was often up to ten persons (that is, 2.4 square metres gross living space per inmate). The applicant claimed that the toilets in those cells had been separated from the living space only some eighteen months ago, and their ventilation remained unresolved. Furthermore, some of the bunk beds had been welded together, so detainees were obliged to sleep right next to each other.

{'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 1966 and lives in Puck. 7. On 19 September 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and membership in an organised criminal group. The investigation against him and several other persons was conducted by the Puck District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy). 8. On 21 September 2007 the Wejherowo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the complex nature of the case. 9. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was later extended by the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 6 December 2007 and on 11 March and 10 June 2008. On 10 September 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) further extended the applicant’s detention. The courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. They also emphasised the need to secure the process of obtaining evidence as the case concerned activities of an organised criminal group. 10. On an unspecified date in 2008 the investigation was taken over by the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy). 11. On 5 December 2008 a bill of indictment against the applicant and seventeen other persons was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with numerous counts of drug trafficking and with membership in an organised criminal group. The bill of indictment stated that six accused had pleaded guilty and agreed to the sentences indicated by the prosecution authorities under Article 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (wniosek o skazanie). It was accompanied by 20 volumes of the case file. The prosecutor requested the court to hear 48 witnesses. 12. During the court proceedings the applicant’s detention pending trial was further extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered on 11 December 2008 and 12 March and 9 June 2009; and by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal’s decisions of 26 August and 25 November 2009, 23 February, 19 May, 25 August and 19 October 2010, 12 January and 23 March 2011. The applicant’s appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent applications for release were unsuccessful. The courts continually justified their decisions by the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences. They also referred to the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction. They further relied on the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, emphasising that the accused and subsequently the witnesses in the case had to testify before the trial court. They considered that the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the proceedings resulted from the fact that he had been charged with membership in an organised criminal group. Finally, they found that the trial court conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner. They noted in this regard the complex character of the case and the voluminous documentation gathered (on 23 March 2011 the case file comprised 36 volumes). They also referred to multiple procedural motions of the accused and their lawyers. 13. Between 12 November 2008 and 14 August 2009 the applicant served a prison sentence ordered in another set of criminal proceedings against him. 14. Meanwhile, on 19 February 2009 the trial court decided to examine the charges against six co-accused in separate proceedings. 15. On 15 April 2009 the court scheduled the first hearing for 13 May 2009. It also scheduled five further hearings. 16. The hearings scheduled for 13 and 28 May 2009 were adjourned due to the absence of one of the accused. 17. The trial was eventually started on 9 July 2009. Subsequently, the trial court held ten further hearings by the end of 2009. 18. In 2010 the court held altogether sixteen hearings. Four of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences or sick-leaves of the accused or their lawyers. 19. In 2011 eight hearings were held by 20 May 2011. On that date the Gdańsk Regional Court lifted the applicant’s detention and imposed on him police supervision and prohibition to leave the country. It considered that it was no longer necessary to hold the applicant in detention as the proceedings were at an advanced stage. The applicant was released on the same date. 20. The proceedings are still pending. 21. On 12 October 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gdańsk Court of Appeal under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right 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”). He questioned the overall length of the proceedings and stated that he had been deprived of his liberty for three years. He complained that due to the lengthy proceedings he had not been able to maintain contact with his newborn daughter and that his financial situation had deteriorated. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 22. On 16 November 2010 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s complaint. The appellate court found that the applicant had failed to indicate circumstances that would justify his request, as required by section 6 of the 2004 Act. It considered that to satisfy this requirement it did not suffice to question the overall length of proceedings, as did the applicant. It stressed that the applicant should have indicated a concrete inactivity or deficient activity on the part of the domestic authorities resulting in the allegedly excessive length of 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 1972 and lives in Sutomore. 6. On 24 April 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Municipality of Bar concerning a plot of land. 7. Following a remittal, on 23 January 2003 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Bar ruled partly in favour of the applicant. 8. On 27 April 2004 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica upheld a part of this judgment but quashed the remainder. 9. On 16 September 2004 the applicant filed at the same time a request for reopening of the proceedings with the Court of First Instance and an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud), both in respect of the part of the judgment which had been upheld. 10. On 2 February 2005 the case-file was transmitted to the Supreme Court, which court returned the case-file to the Court of First Instance on 20 December 2005. 11. On 20 October 2006 the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request for reopening of the proceedings, which decision was upheld by the High Court on 9 May 2008. 12. On 13 June 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. 13. On 9 October 2008 the Court of First Instance joined the examination of the remainder of the applicant’s claim with other two claims previously lodged by the applicant. 14. On 27 October 2008 the applicant filed another submission to the court, in view of the joined proceedings. 15. On 5 May 2009 the applicant specified his claim, in substance repeating his earlier submissions. 16. On 18 June 2009 the hearing started anew given that the case had been assigned to a new judge. The applicant notified the court that he was withdrawing his submission of 27 October 2008. The court invited the applicant to specify his claim, which the applicant did the next day. 17. On 9 September 2009 the hearing started anew given that the case had been assigned to a new judge. 18. On 2 November 2009 the Court of First Instance declared it lacked competence to deal with the case (sud se oglašava nenadležnim) and rejected the claim. On an unspecified date thereafter this decision was quashed by the High Court and in March 2010 the proceedings were again pending before the Court of First Instance. 19. Between April and August 2010 the parties attempted to reach a friendly settlement but to no avail. 20. On 14 February 2011 the hearing started afresh given that the case had been assigned to another judge. 21. On 17 February 2011 the Court of First Instance ruled against the applicant, which decision was quashed by the High Court on 20 September 2011. 22. On 10 May 2012 the Court of First Instance again ruled against the applicant. This judgment was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court on 19 October 2012 and 7 February 2013 respectively. 23. In 2003 and 2004 the applicant proposed that another set of civil proceedings be suspended (prekid postupka) until the proceedings initiated upon the claim lodged in 2000 were concluded. On 6 November 2006 the applicant proposed that this other set of proceedings be continued. 24. On 20 March 2013 the applicant instituted another set of civil proceedings, which are currently pending before the High 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'}

4. The applicants were born in 1937, 1933, 1941 and 1934, respectively, and live in Albania and the United States of America. 5. On 30 December 1994 the Tirana Restitution and Compensation of Properties Commission (“the Commission”) recognised, amongst others, the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 2,461.97 sq. m and decided to restore the property. Since buildings had been constructed on the land by a third party, the Commission ruled that the third party should pay rent for the land or re-purchase the land pursuant to an agreement to be entered into between the parties. It also recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of the buildings. 6. On 18 February 1997 the applicants lodged a civil claim with the Tirana District Court seeking the annulment of a 1996 sale contract entered between the State and the third party over two plots of lands measuring 197 sq. m and 195 sq. m, which they claimed to own. The applicants also sought the payment of rent by the third party pursuant to the 1993 Property Act. In the same set of proceedings, the third party lodged a counter action requesting the partial annulment of the Commission decision. 7. On 24 April 2002 the Supreme Court gave a final decision dismissing the applicants’ claims. It also dismissed their right to first refusal as regards the buildings on the plots of land which had been granted by the Commission. It decided that the applicants are entitled to compensation in respect of the plot of land measuring 2,461.97 sq. m to be determined in accordance with the 1993 Property Act. 8. On 22 October 2004 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a full bench, found no violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial. 9. To date, no compensation has been paid.

{'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 Puck. 6. On 19 September 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and of membership in an organised criminal group. The investigation against him and several other persons was conducted by the Puck District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy). 7. On 21 September 2007 the Wejherowo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony. It also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the complex nature of the case. 8. The applicant’s pre‑trial detention was later extended by the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 6 December 2007 and on 11 March and 10 June 2008. On 10 September 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) further extended the applicant’s detention. The courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. They also emphasised the need to secure the process of obtaining evidence as the case concerned activities of an organised criminal group. 9. On an unspecified date in 2008 the investigation was taken over by the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy). 10. On 5 December 2008 a bill of indictment against the applicant and seventeen other persons was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with numerous counts of drug trafficking and with membership in an organised criminal group. The bill of indictment stated that six accused had pleaded guilty and they agreed to the sentences indicated by the prosecution authorities under Article 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (wniosek o skazanie). It was accompanied by 20 volumes of the case file. The prosecutor requested the court to hear 48 witnesses. 11. During the court proceedings the applicant’s detention pending trial was further extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered on 11 December 2008 and 12 March and 9 June 2009; and by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal’s decisions of 26 August and 25 November 2009, 23 February, 19 May, 25 August and 19 October 2010, 12 January and 23 March 2011. The applicant’s appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent applications for release were unsuccessful. The courts continually justified their decisions by the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences. They also referred to the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction. They further relied on the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, emphasising that the accused and subsequently the key witnesses in the case had to testify before the trial court. They considered that the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the proceedings resulted, in particular, from the fact that he had been charged with membership in an organised criminal group. Finally, they found that the trial court conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner. They noted in this regard the complex character of the case and the voluminous documentation gathered (on 23 March 2011 the case file comprised 36 volumes). They also referred to multiple procedural motions of the accused and their lawyers. 12. Between 17 March 2010 and 17 March 2011 the applicant served a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him. On 17 March 2011 he started serving another prison sentence. 13. Meanwhile, on 19 February 2009 the trial court decided to examine the charges against six co‑accused in separate proceedings. 14. On 15 April 2009 the court scheduled the first hearing for 13 May 2009. It also scheduled five further hearings. 15. The hearings scheduled for 13 and 28 May 2009 were adjourned due to the absence of one of the accused. 16. The trial was eventually started on 9 July 2009. Subsequently, the trial court held ten further hearings by the end of 2009. 17. In 2010 the court held sixteen hearings altogether. Four of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences or sick‑leaves of the accused or their lawyers. 18. In 2011 eight hearings were held by 20 May 2011. On that date the Gdańsk Regional Court lifted the applicant’s detention on remand. 19. The proceedings are still pending before 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 1973. He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment without commutation in Lovech Prison. 6. The applicant has been sentenced eleven times at the end of different sets of criminal proceedings. In 2002 the prosecutor discontinued as time-barred others, in which he had been detained during different periods in 1991, 1992 and 1995. 7. In August 2007 the applicant brought proceedings seeking compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention during the criminal proceedings against him which had been discontinued as time-barred in 2002 (see paragraph 6 above). His claim was dismissed by two levels of court in 2008. Referring to section 8 of interpretative decision No. 3 of 22 April 2004 of the Supreme Court of Cassation (see paragraph 43 below), the second-instance court held that State responsibility for damage could not be engaged as measures and steps taken before the expiration of the statute of limitations cannot be considered unlawful within the meaning of the SMRDA. 8. On 13 October 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and murder and convicted to serve a cumulated punishment of life imprisonment without commutation on 26 October 2000. 9. The applicant was detained and served this punishment in the Lovech and Varna Prisons. He was in Lovech Prison between 17 January 2000 and 14 June 2002, between 12 August 2005 and 20 December 2006, and again as of 19 February 2009, where he continued to be at the time of the last information which the Court received from the Government in May 2011. He was detained in Varna Prison between 14 June 2002 and 12 August 2005, and again between 20 December 2006 and 19 February 2009. 10. In both prisons and throughout this period the applicant was placed under the “special regime” and was kept in permanently locked cells with heightened security. 11. The applicant submitted that occasionally he had had to share his cell in Varna Prison with other inmates. According to the Government he was mostly kept alone in his cell in Lovech Prison; they did not provide information in respect of his cell in Varna Prison. 12. According to the applicant the cells were not equipped with toilet facilities or taps and wash basins. He was allowed to use the common toilet and to wash his hands three times a day before meals. He had had to use a plastic bucket to relieve himself in his cell at all other times. Apart from the daily hourly walk in the open air, these had been the only times he had been allowed out of his cell. 13. The Government did not dispute that in respect of the period before the autumn of 2008, when works had been carried out in the special security wing in Lovech Prison and toilets and sinks had been installed in each of the cells of the prisoners serving sentences of life imprisonment. Likewise, the windows had been changed. The Government did not provide details in relation to sanitary facilities in Varna Prison. Referring to section 71(2) of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 according to which persons placed under the special regime had to be kept in constantly locked cells and under heightened supervision, they explained that the “special regime” conditions did not allow unrestricted access to the toilet facilities. (b) General hygiene 14. The applicant complained that he was allowed to shower only once a fortnight in Varna Prison. He further claimed that hygiene in the common areas was poor, with rats in the kitchen and the toilet. 15. The Government did not comment on conditions in Varna Prison but replied that the cells in Lovech Prison had been cleaned regularly. During the period between 31 May 2004 and 7 June 2004 three checks had been carried out in Lovech Prison by the deputy prison director and medical staff who reported a satisfactory situation. The Government further stressed that the applicant had been provided with 0,2 kg of soap for personal hygiene and 0,25 kg of soap for washing his clothes every month. 16. The applicant submitted that the food served in the prisons was of poor quality and that the cells were too cold in winter, too hot in summer, damp and lacking in ventilation. 17. The Government responded that the food was certified for its good quality and was prepared and supervised by a qualified cook. The weekly menu was put together by the prison cook and approved by the prison director, by medical personnel and by a prison administrator. Life prisoners received their food in their cells. When the applicant had refused to eat pork because of his religious convictions, he had been given grilled veal sausages with different side dishes. He had been provided with about 2620 calories a day. 18. The applicant further claimed that medical services were insufficient. In this regard the Government replied that prisoners serving life sentences were subject to periodical medical checks, which took place in their cells for security reasons. If they needed to be examined by outside medical personnel, they were taken to the prison medical centre. The inmates received any medication they needed from the prison’s pharmacy and could purchase different medicines from external pharmacies once a prescription had been issued. All cases requiring urgent intervention were treated without delay. 19. The applicant claimed that he had been offered no opportunity for social contact or other occupational activities while serving his sentence of life imprisonment. 20. Without specifying any particular period of time, frequency or duration, the Government submitted that the applicant had been given the opportunity to take part in cultural and intellectual activities in Lovech Prison. He could order and receive books from the prison library which were taken to his cell. He could read a daily national and two local newspapers. The Government also submitted that the applicant could play chess and participate in essay competitions organised in the prison, to the extent to which the regime of inmates serving life-imprisonment sentences permitted. 21. On 27 October 2005 the applicant brought proceedings under the SMRDA seeking BGN 25,000 in compensation for the distress and humiliation suffered during the period between 26 October 2000 and 26 October 2005 as a result of the poor conditions of detention in the prisons in Lovech and Varna, as well as of the periods of disciplinary sanctions enforced in cells lacking beds, linen, tables and chairs for a total of 40 days in the same period. 22. In their decision of 8 May 2006 the court found that the applicant, like the other inmates serving life sentences under the “special regime”, had had to use a bucket in the cell for toilet needs. Life prisoners had only been let out of their cells three times a day when they were allowed to use the communal toilets and wash the buckets; during the rest of the time they had to relieve themselves in the cells in front of other inmates. The court concluded that the humiliation of having to use a bucket for one’s physiological needs could only be justified with security reasons. As the Government had failed to produce evidence that there had been a real and serious risk to security in the applicant’s case, the restrictions applied to his access to a toilet had been excessive and beyond the ones inherent to deprivation of liberty. The court awarded the applicant BGN 200 (approximately EUR 100) in damages suffered as a result of detention in inhuman and degrading material conditions – absence of toilet facilities, bed, linen, table and chair, access of light and fresh air caused by inaction of the respondent party in the period 26 October 2000 – 26 October 2005. The applicant was required to pay court fees at the amount of BGN 992 for the remaining part of his claim. 23. Upon an appeal by both parties, on 28 December 2006 the Veliko Turnovo Appellate Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the claim. The court found in particular that the applicant’s “special regime” required heightened security arrangements and constantly locked cells, which made it impossible to allow access to the communal toilet at night. However, he had access to the toilet during the day-time slots allowed for that and it had not been established that the prison guards had prevented him from visiting the toilet then. While serving such a punishment was no doubt characterized by negative and unfavourable effects, the circumstances of the case did not attract the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and the prison authorities under the SMRDA since the enforcement of a punishment could not be considered as exercising administrative activities or as unlawful action or inaction within the meaning of Article 1 of this law. According to the appellate court the responsibility of the State for the alleged suffering could be engaged before other unspecified bodies and proceedings. 24. In a final decision no. 666/08 of 26 May 2008 issued in case no. 1685/2008, the Supreme Court of Cassation accepted that the Ministry of Justice and the prison authorities were the state bodies responsible for the execution of sentences and were therefore liable under the SMRDA for any damage caused in connection with it. It was notorious that the conditions in the Bulgarian prisons were not up to European standards, but these conditions were the same for all inmates. The execution of sentences was in itself accompanied by considerable restrictions associated with deprivation of liberty and the various regimes, especially by the “special regime” as compared to the others, and even more in placement in isolation cells as a disciplinary sanction for offences. In examining such complaints the courts had to take into account and strike the necessary balance between the prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment as set by the Constitution and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention, and the inevitable suffering inherent to deprivation of liberty. The court acknowledged the degrading effect of using buckets in the presence of other prisoners, but also took into account the necessity to ensure security and discipline in accordance with the requirements of the “special regime” served in this department of the prison as well as the personalities and specific conduct of prisoners. In striking this balance in the particular case, the Supreme Court of Cassation found that the applicant’s suffering did not go beyond the level of due respect to his dignity and did not require any compensation. 25. On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant brought another set of proceedings under the SMRDA seeking BGN 11,000 in compensation for damages suffered as a result of the application of the “special regime”, which excluded him from labour, educational, cultural and sport activities, during the periods 17 January 2000 – 14 June 2002 and 12 August 2005 – 20 December 2006, when he was in Lovech Prison; as well as 14 June 2002 – 12 August 2005 and after 20 December 2006, when he was in Varna Prison and with the exception of the time between 14 July 2002 and 12 August 2005 when he had been allowed to see a psychologist and take part in educational activities once a week, as well as to play table-tennis for 45 minutes on Fridays. 26. In a final judgment of 23 February 2009 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the appellate court’s findings rejecting the applicant’s claim. In particular it observed that the lower (Veliko Turnovo Appellate) court: “...established an absence of unlawful conduct by representatives of the prison administration leading to the applicant suffering damage. The applicant is serving his sentence under the ‘special regime’ in accordance with section 127b of the Execution of Punishments Act 1969 [the 1969 Act]. Under section 127d in conjunction with section 127a of the 1969 Act the sentence of life imprisonment without commutation is implemented either in separate prisons or in special sections of the regular prisons. According to section 167g of the regulations for the implementation of the 1969 Act life prisoners are placed in permanently locked cells under heightened security. Only after a decision of the commission under section 17 of the 1969 Act can those prisoners be accommodated in cells together with prisoners serving different sentences and can they take part in joint sport, work, educational or other activities. The lower court concluded on the basis of the legislation referred to above that the administration of Lovech and Varna Prisons cannot be said to have failed to act thus causing the applicant non-pecuniary damage. Admittedly, during the period in question the applicant did not take part in labour, educational or sport activities. However, that is explained with the type of regime under which he is serving his sentence and not with any unlawful conduct by the prison administration. The applicant has been involved in individual correctional activities; he had been allowed to spend an hour a day in the open air in a place furnished with sports equipment. As of February 2007, he has been allowed an additional hour for sport. Moreover, it has not been established that he has suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the absence of labour, sport or cultural activities.” 27. The Supreme Court of Cassation concluded that: “...the lower court rightly held that no unlawful failure to act by the prison administration had been established, contrary to the applicant’s allegations. In order to engage the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice under section 1 of the SMRDA for the prison administration’s alleged failure to act, it is necessary to establish that the lack of action was unlawful, in other words, that there existed an obligation to act and the administration failed to do so. The prison regime is stipulated in the 1969 Act. According to sections 43 and 127a of the 1969 Act, as well as to section 167g of the regulations for its implementation, inmates placed under the “special regime” are mandatorily kept apart from the rest of the prison population. The evidence in the file does not show that the prison administration has acted in breach of the legislative framework regulating the enforcement of the punishment given to the applicant. Mr Hasan refers to Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to other relevant international instruments. However, the evidence gathered in his case does not show that he has been subjected to humiliation. The conditions under which he has been kept in prison are in conformity with the statutory requirements regulating the functioning of the places for deprivation of liberty.” 28. The applicant submitted that while he was in Varna Prison the entirety of his incoming and outgoing correspondence with his lawyer was subject to inspection in accordance with section 33(1)(c) of the 1969 Act. 29. He also claimed that the prison administration failed to deliver some of the letters to his mother because they were written in Turkish. He further stated that he could make telephone calls only to members of his family and not to his lawyer. Furthermore, he submitted that the visits by relatives and lawyers to him were held in special premises with a prison officer attending the meeting. 30. The applicant, a Muslim of Turkish origin, claimed to have frequently been insulted on the basis of his ethnic origin and religious beliefs by the Varna prison authorities and in particular by J.V., one of the prison officers. In particular, the applicant claimed that the authorities had addressed him as “dirty Turk”, “gypsy” and other ethnically-based insults. He submitted declarations made by other prisoners in support of his statements concerning the discriminatory comments. 31. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the district prosecutor of abuse of office by J.V. in relation to a search of the inmates’ cells. He also stated that J.V. had made discriminatory comments against him. By a final order of 23 February 2005 a prosecutor from the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office refused to open criminal proceedings against J.V. for abuse of office. As regards the alleged discriminatory insults, the prosecutor stated that they were not subject to public prosecution and that therefore the applicant should have brought a private criminal complaint before the courts. 32. Between 2006 and 2008 the applicant complained successfully under the Protection Against Discrimination Act on three occasions, alleging other type of discriminatory treatment in prison. In particular the courts found that he had been discriminated against by not having been given meals free from pork as required by his religious convictions; by having been made to put stamps on his letters to State institutions, when that had not been required from prisoners not serving life sentences; and, by having been shaved and had his hair trimmed in his cell, while prisoners with lighter sentences had access to the barber’s premises in the prison. The courts ordered the relevant authorities to discontinue the above discriminatory practices and, in the context of his claim about a failure to respect his religious convictions, to provide to him pork-free food.

{'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 1981. 6. The applicant is a transgender person whose gender is recorded in the civil-status register as female. He stated that he had become aware, even as a child, of feeling that he was male, a feeling that was at variance with his anatomical sex. 7. On 30 September 2005 the applicant applied to the Mersin District Court (“the District Court”) under Article 40 of the Civil Code seeking authorisation to undergo gender reassignment surgery. In the application instituting the proceedings the applicant’s lawyer gave the following reasons for his client’s request. His client had, since he was a child, regarded himself as male rather than female and for that reason had been receiving psychological counselling since childhood; at the age of nineteen or twenty he had contemplated suicide; his current biological identity was at odds with the gender to which he felt he belonged; and gender reassignment was necessary in order for him to achieve harmony between his private perception of himself and his physical make-up. The lawyer stated that several doctors whom his client had consulted since childhood had recommended gender reassignment. The applicant, who was twenty-four years old, was living as a man, had been in a relationship with a woman for four years and was accepted as a man by his family and friends. The lawyer added that his client had been receiving treatment for the past year in the psychiatric department of İnönü University Hospital with a view to undergoing the gender reassignment surgery that he sought. Lastly, the lawyer requested that the proceedings remain confidential in view of his client’s psychological state. 8. On 16 December 2005 the District Court granted the request concerning the confidentiality of the proceedings. 9. On 6 February 2006 the court heard evidence from the applicant’s family. The applicant’s mother stated that as a child her daughter had played mainly with boys and as an adolescent had told her mother that she felt more like a boy and wanted to be one. The applicant’s mother had therefore consulted psychologists, who had expressed the view that her daughter would be happier if she could live as a man, a view which the applicant’s mother shared. The applicant’s older brother also said that his sister had played with boys when she was a child, had started to behave like a boy during adolescence and had had girlfriends, and that she had been determined to undergo gender reassignment by means of surgery. She had made several suicide attempts and was still in therapy. As far as the applicant’s brother was aware, the doctors had decided to go ahead with the operation. On conclusion of the hearing the District Court sent a request for information to the medical director of the hospital where the applicant was being treated, seeking to ascertain whether the applicant was transgender, whether gender reassignment was necessary to ensure his mental health and whether he was permanently unable to procreate. 10. On 23 February 2006 a medical committee of İnönü University Medical Centre drew up a psychiatric report which found that the applicant was transgender. The report further found that, from a psychological viewpoint, the applicant should henceforth live with a male identity. 11. On 28 February 2006 a medical committee of the gynaecology and obstetrics unit of the same medical centre drew up a report which found that Y.Y. had a female phenotype and was transgender. 12. On 7 April 2006 the District Court examined the two medical reports from İnönü University’s medical faculty. The court observed that the authors of the report of 23 February 2006 had diagnosed the applicant as transgender and had found that, from a psychological viewpoint, he should live henceforth with a male identity, but that the authors of the report of 28 February 2006 had found Y.Y.’s phenotype to be female. However, the court considered that these reports had not answered the questions it had asked, namely whether gender reassignment was necessary in order to ensure the claimant’s mental health and whether the claimant was permanently unable to procreate. The court therefore reiterated its request for information. 13. On 20 April 2006 the head of the gynaecology and obstetrics unit attached to the surgical department of İnönü University’s medical faculty wrote to the head doctor of the medical centre informing him that the applicant had been examined following a request for a consultation with a plastic surgeon with a view to gender reassignment. She said that an examination had established that Y.Y. had female external and internal genitalia and was not permanently unable to procreate. 14. On 21 April 2006 a medical committee of the psychiatric department of İnönü University’s medical faculty wrote to the head doctor of the medical centre informing him that the applicant had been examined on 20 April 2006. Following that examination the medical team had concluded that, in the interests of his mental health, the applicant should be allowed to live henceforth with a male identity. 15. At the District Court hearing of 5 May 2006 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the report of 20 April 2006 on the grounds that it had not been adopted by a collegiate body. The District Court accordingly requested a fresh expert report on the applicant’s ability to procreate. The task of preparing the report was entrusted to a medical committee of Çukurova University’s faculty of medicine. 16. On 11 May 2006 two doctors from the gynaecology and obstetrics department of Çukurova University’s faculty of medicine carried out an expert assessment and concluded, after examining the applicant, that he was capable of procreating. 17. On 27 June 2006 the District Court, basing its decision on the findings of the various expert reports, refused the applicant authorisation to undergo gender reassignment, on the ground that he was not permanently unable to procreate and therefore did not satisfy one of the conditions of eligibility for gender reassignment under Article 40 of the Civil Code. 18. On 18 July 2006 the applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment. In his pleadings the applicant’s lawyer stressed that his client had considered himself since childhood as male rather than female and that this belief was not a mere whim. The applicant had undergone a lengthy course of psychotherapy following which the doctors had concluded that he was transgender and that, from a psychological perspective, it was advisable for him to live as a man. The lawyer further submitted that his client’s ability to procreate did not in any way prevent him from perceiving himself as a man; it was a biological fact over which he had no control. In Turkey as elsewhere in the world, persons who, like the applicant, were unable to reconcile their biological and psychological state were not necessarily single and unable to procreate. There were numerous examples of people who had a predisposition towards transgenderism and who had married and had children before having gender reassignment surgery. It was unfair to make authorisation for a change of biological gender contingent on the ability of the transgender individuals concerned to procreate, whether they considered themselves as men or as women. Accordingly, in refusing to allow the applicant to undergo gender reassignment surgery under Article 40 of the Civil Code – which, in the lawyer’s submission, did not reflect social reality – the courts had restricted his client’s rights and freedoms. The lawyer further alleged that the refusal of the applicant’s request on account of his ability to procreate had been unlawful. In his view, the expression “permanently unable to procreate” should be deleted from the provision in question. 19. On 17 May 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the District Court judgment, taking the view that the first-instance court had not erred in its assessment of the evidence. 20. On 18 June 2007 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an application for rectification of that decision. In his pleadings he submitted that none of the grounds of appeal advanced by the applicant had been taken into account, and that no comment had been made on the official documents and reports included in the file. The lawyer also contested the use of the report of 11 May 2006 prepared by the gynaecology and obstetrics department of Çukurova University’s medical faculty as the basis for rejecting the applicant’s claims. He argued in that regard that the report in question did not have the status of an expert report and had been drawn up following a purely superficial examination of his client’s genital organs that was insufficient to establish his ability to procreate. Even assuming that the various medical reports had sufficed to establish that his client was capable of procreating, the only gender with which his client could identify from a physical and psychological perspective was male. Moreover, that fact had been established on 2 March 2005 in the report of the medical committee of İnönü University, where his client had also been following a long-term course of psychotherapy. The lawyer criticised the failure to take the latter fact into account. Lastly, he submitted that the courts had infringed the applicant’s rights by refusing his request for authorisation to undergo surgery aimed at assigning to him the gender with which he naturally identified. 21. On 18 October 2007 the Court of Cassation rejected the application for rectification lodged by the applicant, observing that none of the grounds for setting aside enumerated in Article 440 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied in the case at hand. 22. On 5 March 2013 the applicant lodged a fresh application with the Mersin District Court on the basis of Article 40 of the Civil Code, seeking authorisation to undergo gender reassignment surgery. In his application instituting the proceedings, the applicant’s lawyer gave the following reasons for the request. His client had regarded himself from a young age as male rather than female and for that reason had received psychological counselling since childhood; medical reports had established that, from a psychological viewpoint, it was advisable for him to live henceforth with a male identity; the applicant’s biological identity was at odds with the gender to which he felt he belonged; gender reassignment was necessary to ensure his psychological and mental well-being; on 27 March 2012 he had undergone a double mastectomy and was taking various hormones to increase his testosterone levels; he was working for his brother as a painter and decorator; he went regularly to the gym and had the physical appearance of a man; he was now thirty-two years old and had always regarded himself as a man; the friends he had met after a certain age knew him only as a man; and he did not use the first name indicated on his identity papers. The lawyer added that, in order to bring his physical appearance into line with his perception of himself, his client had resorted to all kinds of methods with damaging side-effects. In his daily life, and especially when he had to produce his identity papers for the authorities, the applicant was subjected to denigrating and humiliating treatment and encountered numerous difficulties because of the discrepancy between his outward appearance and the identity indicated on his papers. The lawyer summed up by requesting the court to allow his client to begin the requisite formalities in order to change his identity in the civil-status register, to grant his client’s request to undergo gender reassignment, to authorise him to undergo gender reassignment surgery and to declare the District Court proceedings confidential. 23. On 11 April 2013, following a full medical history and examination of the applicant, a committee made up of psychiatrists from İnönü University Medical Centre issued a medical report which found that the applicant was transgender and that gender reassignment was necessary in order to ensure his mental health. The report also stated that an expert assessment should be carried out to establish whether the applicant was permanently unable to procreate. 24. On 6 May 2013 a forensic medical report was drawn up by a committee from the forensic medicine department of İnönü University Medical Centre. According to the report, during the examination carried out on 11 April 2013 in the forensic medical department, the applicant had stated that he wished to undergo gender reassignment surgery and had already taken steps to that end in the past but had had his claims rejected by the courts. He had then applied to the European Court of Human Rights and had since brought a fresh action. The medical examination had shown that the applicant had a male phenotype (all his external characteristics). He had a beard and a moustache, his breast tissue had been surgically removed and he was receiving treatment following that operation. He had male hair growth on his arms and legs, was undergoing hormone treatment and was embarrassed by the colour of his identity card[1] and had therefore covered it before putting it in his wallet. Lastly, the applicant had stated that reassignment was a necessity for him. According to the report, blood tests had revealed that the applicant had a total testosterone count of more than 16,000 ng/dl, presumably linked to the hormone treatment he was taking. However, this did not mean that he was permanently unable to procreate. The report concluded as follows: “1. [The applicant] is transgender; 25. On 21 May 2013 the Mersin District Court granted the applicant’s request and authorised the gender reassignment surgery which he sought. In its reasoning, the District Court found it established that the applicant was transgender, that gender reassignment was needed to ensure his mental health, and that it was clear from the evidence of the witnesses called by the applicant that he lived as a man in every respect and suffered as a result of his situation. Accordingly, in view of the evidence and of the reports produced, the conditions set forth in Article 40 § 2 of the Civil Code were satisfied and the request should be granted. The judgment specified that it was final. ...

{'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 1988 and lives in the town of Nizhniy Novgorod. 6. On 14 December 2006 the Military Conscription Committee of the Moscow District of the town of Nizhniy Novgorod examined the applicant’s medical condition. Having declared him fit, they conscripted him into the army. The applicant was given the rank of junior sergeant and sent to preparatory Military Unit no. 73864, located in the town of Kovrov in the Vladimir Region. 7. Six months later, on 28 May 2007, he was transferred to Military Unit no. 34605 of the town of Volgograd of the Volgograd Region. 8. The applicant submitted that personal relations among the servicemen of the unit were tense and violent. The applicant had panicked and decided to escape. 1 The applicant’s first attempt to escape 9. On 4 June 2007 the applicant and junior sergeant V. ran away from the unit. 10. The command of the unit launched a search operation to find the fugitives. 11. On the morning of 5 June 2007 deputy commander major A. and captain K. located and apprehended the applicant and junior sergeant V. close to the nearby village of Stepnoy. 12. According to the applicant, on their way back to the unit A. and K. had threatened to execute or drown them. The threats had frightened the applicant to such an extent that he decided to escape again. 13. During a stopover the applicant made another attempt to escape. Shortly thereafter he was caught in a nearby swamp. The escorting officers stripped him of his clothes and put him in the cargo compartment of a military truck which brought both fugitives back to the unit. 14. On 6 June 2007 the applicant and V. were brought before battalion commander Ch., who lined up the battalion. The applicant and V. ‒ allegedly stripped naked ‒ were made to stand in front of the other servicemen. It does not appear that there were any female service personnel present on this occasion. The Government submitted that the applicant and V. had been wearing military briefs. The battalion commander publicly condemned and reprimanded them. 15. Thereafter the applicant was brought to the commander’s office and was asked to prepare an explanatory note concerning the events of 4-6 June 2007. 16. The applicant stated that after he had drafted the explanatory note, the commander had ordered company commander lieutenant S. to load a machine gun with bullets, go outside and execute the applicant. The applicant was taken outside and placed up against a wall. Captain Kar. aimed a machine gun at him. The applicant pleaded for mercy and promised “to become the best sergeant in the unit”, whereupon Kar. brought him back into the commander’s office. At this moment the applicant heard a machine gun being discharged and thought that V. had just been executed. 17. Some time later the battalion commander ordered officer G. to dress the applicant in a military protection suit. The suit consisted of a mask, protective cloak, rubberized stockings and gloves and was unsuitable for continuous use in hot weather. The applicant’s fellow servicemen then shaved his head and warrant officer G. painted a five-pointed star on his head using brilliant green antiseptic. A fellow serviceman then delivered a few blows to the applicant’s body and head with an army belt buckle. Then another soldier put a leash around his neck and walked him around the training ground. The applicant was also threatened with sexual violence if he ever decided to escape again. 18. According to the applicant, the following night after lights-out junior sergeant S. and private soldier O. had removed the leash from his neck, attached him to a pole in the centre of the tent which served as their sleeping quarters, and made him read aloud the sergeant’s military manual, using a lighter and a pocket lamp for light. At around 2 a.m. the applicant was further intimidated by S., who told him that his friends in the town of Nizhniy Novgorod would find and rape him when his military service was over. 19. The applicant stated that the next morning he was again ordered to put on the military protection suit, the collar and the leash and escorted by junior sergeant Zh. for breakfast dressed in this way. He was then taken to the battalion commander. The applicant had asked him for permission to take off the suit, the collar and the leash. The commander said he could do so as soon as he had washed the star off his head. For the next two hours the applicant washed his head in a river flowing nearby, using only his hands and the sand. 20. On 7 June 2007 ‒ surveillance of the applicant having been relaxed ‒ he escaped and, this time, reached his family in the town of Nizhniy Novgorod. 21. According to the applicant, after his escape, the battalion commander Ch. had ordered his fellow servicemen to keep silent about the ill-treatment. 22. On 26 June 2007 the applicant complained of his ill-treatment to the Soldiers’ Mothers Committee of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region («Нижегородский областной комитет солдатских матерей»). 23. On 27 June 2007 the applicant complained to the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Nizhniy Novgorod Garrison (“Nizhniy Novgorod Prosecutor’s Office”) about his ill-treatment in the Military Unit. In his claim he provided an account of the alleged events, stating that his fellow servicemen Vl., Kats., Zai., Ryb., Mal. and Fed. could confirm the facts of his ill-treatment and “hazing”. 24. The Nizhniy Novgorod Prosecutor’s Office opened a preliminary inquiry into his allegations and held that the applicant should be transferred to another military unit pending the outcome of the proceedings. 25. On 28 June 2007 the Nizhniy Novgorod Prosecutor’s Office ordered an expert psychiatric examination of the applicant. 26. The expert examination of the applicant was conducted between 4 and 26 July 2007 in Psycho-Neurological Hospital No. 1 of the Nizhniy Novgorod District. 27. On 21 August 2008 the Military Medical Commission of the Nizhniy Novgorod Garrison diagnosed the applicant with “a personality disorder of the emotional unstable type, with variable amelioration, contracted during his military service” and held that he was “fit with restrictions” for military service. 28. Owing to the above diagnosis, the applicant was prematurely discharged from the army. 29. The Nizhniy Novgorod Prosecutor’s Office joined the inquiry proceedings into the applicant’s complaints of 26 June 2007 with the inquiry into similar complaints by junior sergeant V. dated 1 July 2007. The case was then sent for investigation to the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Volgograd Garrison (“Volgograd Prosecutor’s Office”). 30. On 16 July 2007 an investigator of the Volgograd Prosecutor’s Office issued a refusal to open a criminal case. In this decision it referred to statements given by the alleged perpetrators, including the battalion commander Ch., deputy commanding officer major A., captain K., lieutenant S., captain Kar., warrant officer G. and junior sergeant Zh., and to the statements of other servicemen who had been questioned concerning the applicant’s allegations. The refusal reads: “In the course of the inquiry carried out into [the applicant’s] request, the investigating authorities have established the following: Junior sergeant [V.] claimed that the complaints of 26 June and 1 July 2007 concerning ill-treatment were false. No acts of ill-treatment against him or [the applicant] had taken place either in the period under examination (6 and 7 June 2007) or during their military service in the [Military Unit]. He did not see any injuries such as scratches, bruises or haematomas on [the applicant’s] body. According to junior sergeant [V.], [the applicant] gave the false statements so as to avoid criminal liability for the unauthorised leave from the [Military Unit] on 4 June 2007. In private conversations [the applicant] had often remarked that he did not want to serve in the army. The simulation of psychiatric problems and the false statements about ill‑treatment are in the junior sergeant’s opinion no more than a means of avoiding military service. During questioning the latter also stated that [the applicant] had no psychiatric problems and that during his military service he had not shown signs of any unusual behaviour. Junior sergeant [V.] also stated that on 1 July 2007 during his stay in hospital he had been contacted by [two] representatives of a Russian NGO, “Mothers’ Right” (“Материнское право”). They showed him [the applicant’s] statements of 26 June 2007 and promised to assist with his transfer to a military unit in his place of residence in exchange for giving similar statements capable of confirming [the applicant’s] allegations. As he very much wanted to perform his military service close to his home in the Kaliningrad Region, he accepted their offer. Later he realised that it was a mistake, because he had no intention of slandering anybody. He explained that all the facts mentioned in his [complaints] of 1 July 2007 were false. Neither he nor [the applicant] had been ill-treated by their fellow servicemen. To confirm his statements he presented the business card which the [NGO representative] had given to him ... The battalion commander [Ch.] stated that the allegations of ill-treatment mentioned in the statements of 26 June and 1 July 2007 were false. He further stated that he had not seen any scratches, bruises or haematomas on [the applicant] or junior sergeant [V.]. Moreover, they had not lodged any complaints about the ill‑treatment allegedly committed by the servicemen of the [Military Unit]. According to the battalion commander [Ch.], [the applicant] had made up the allegations either to avoid criminal liability for the unauthorised leave from the [Military Unit] on 4 June 2007, or to avoid military service by way of falsification of his mental problems. He noted that [the applicant] was of sound mind and that he had never shown signs of any unusual behaviour. The battalion commander [Ch.] speculated that [the applicant] simply did not want to continue his military service because it was so hard. According to [Ch.], only negative references could be provided on account of [the applicant’s] personality. For instance, [the applicant] had left his place of service several times without the authorisation of his superiors. Although he followed the orders of his commander, he required constant supervision. He was a sly and dodgy person, who did not understand the meaning of his military duty. During private conversations [the applicant] expressed his intention of leaving the [Military Unit]. Deputy commanding officer major [A.], captain [K.], lieutenant [S.], captain [Kar.] and warrant officer [G.] gave statements which were essentially similar to the statements of the battalion commander [Ch.]. During the inquiry the investigative authorities also questioned [Kats., a witness on the applicant’s behalf]. He stated that [the applicant’s and V.’s] statements of 26 June and 1 July 2007 had been false and that [the applicant] had given them to avoid criminal liability for the unauthorised leave from the [Military Unit] on 4 June 2007. He also stated that between 20 November 2005 and 27 May 2007 he had served with [the applicant] in the military unit of the Town of Kovrov of the Vladimir Region. During this period [the applicant] ‒ without permission ‒ left the military unit for two weeks. Later, he returned of his own volition and explained that he did not like serving in the army. According to [the applicant’s] confession, he returned only because of his father, with whom he had had an argument [on account of his refusal to serve in the army]. [The applicant] was a smart, sly and a dodgy person who was able to avoid military service by making up a good and credible excuse. [Kats.] stated that [the applicant] was a mentally sound person who did not show signs of unusual behaviour. [The applicant] showed a negative attitude towards his military duty and was an irresponsible person who did not like to work. He did not carry out his commander’s orders promptly and always needed to be under supervision. In private conversations he mentioned that he wanted to leave military service and go to the town of Sochi to earn some money. The [applicant’s and junior sergeant’s V.’s] fellow servicemen [Mal., Ryb., Zai., Fed., Ost., and junior sergeant Zh.], who were separately interviewed by the investigator, gave similar statements. From the above it is apparent that [the allegations of the applicant and junior sergeant V.] ... remained unconfirmed ... Accordingly, the request to institute criminal proceedings should be dismissed owing to the absence of the alleged criminal offences...” 31. With assistance from the NGO “Mothers’ Right”, the applicant challenged the decision of 16 July 2007 before a higher authority. The appeal claim was supported by statements made by his fellow serviceman Gal., who in written submissions dated 26 July 2007 confirmed the applicant’s allegations and stated that all the soldiers of the Military Unit had been intimidated by the battalion commander Ch., who forbade them to give true statements, and by warrant officer G., who threatened the witnesses concerned. 32. On 20 September 2007 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the North-Caucasus Military Circuit quashed the decision of 16 July 2007. Without citing specific shortcomings, it stated that the investigator’s conclusions had been baseless. In its relevant part this decision reads: “On 14 September 2007 [the lawyer of the NGO Mothers’ Right] appealed against the decision of 16 July 2007. Examination of the appeal statements has shown that the [investigator from the Volgograd Prosecutor’s Office] did not perform a thorough inquiry. Accordingly, his decision must be quashed as ill-founded. ... From the case file it is apparent that the circumstances ... surrounding [the apprehension of the applicant] and junior sergeant [V.] by deputy commanding officer major [A.] and captain [K.] after their escape from [the Military Unit] and the subsequent ill-treatment [of the fugitives] were not sufficiently established. Consequently, the reasoning underlying the decision of 16 July 2007 is deficient. From the above it is apparent that [the investigator’s] conclusion that the [applicant’s] complaints of ill-treatment in respect of him and [V.] lacked a sound basis and was premature. Accordingly, the decision of 16 July 2007 is groundless.” 33. In the context of the second round of the inquiry, the investigator conducted additional interviews with junior sergeant V., the battalion commander Ch., commanding officer major A. and captain K. regarding the applicant’s apprehension, undressing, and delivery to the Military Unit. Their additional statements were summarised as follows: “During the additional interview with junior sergeant [V.], the latter explained that on the day following his unauthorised leave on 4 June 2007, commanding officer major [A.] and captain [K.] had apprehended them near Stepnoy, put them in a Ural truck, and brought them back to the [Military Unit]. On their way to [the Military Unit] [the applicant] asked [V.] to escape with him, but the latter refused. [The applicant] attempted to escape on his own, but was arrested by the escorting officers. After the unsuccessful attempt to run away, commanding officer major [A.] ordered them to take all their clothes off. They remained only in military briefs. This order was given to prevent their attempts to abscond. These events took place during the summer, and so he felt comfortable wearing only military briefs, and his human dignity was not humiliated. His statements of 1 July 2007 had been drafted following a sample prepared by [the applicant] and contained the false allegation that they had been standing completely naked... During his additional interview, battalion commander [Ch.] stated that on 6 June 2007 between 2 and 4 p.m. he had lined up his battalion. At this time the escorting officer brought [the applicant] and junior sergeant [V.] to him. On 4 June 2007 they had left the [Military Unit] without permission and were later arrested near the village of Stepnoy. The escorting officers stated that after the arrest [the applicant] and [junior sergeant V.] had been undressed and left with only their military briefs on. This was done to prevent them from fleeing. After this, the battalion commander [Ch.] had ordered the [applicant] and junior sergeant [V.] to put their clothes back on. He talked to the fugitives and reprimanded them. During the additional interview with commanding officer major [A.], the latter confirmed that [the applicant] and [V.] had been brought onto the site of [the Military Unit] wearing only military briefs. After their arrival they had been made to stand in front of their battalion formation. The commanding officer had ordered them to put their clothes back on and had talked to them. [The applicant] and [V.] were reprimanded. When questioned further, captain [K.] noted that on 6 June 2007, after the arrest of [the applicant] and [V.] near the village of Stepnoy, [the applicant] had attempted to abscond. After this [the applicant] had been caught by the escorting officers, who ordered him to adopt “position no.1”, i.e. to take all of his clothes off and remain only in military briefs...” 34. On 8 October 2007, having regard to the above statements and evidence previously obtained, the investigator refused to open a criminal case to examine the applicant’s allegations. He confirmed his previous findings about the lack of criminally punishable offences. As regards the episodes of the applicant’s undressing, the investigator reasoned as follows: “There is no indication of any criminal offence under Article 286 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Russia [“Abuse of power”] in the actions of [K.], [A.] and [Ch.] ..., because the order given to [the applicant] and junior sergeant [V.] to remove their clothes was issued solely with a view to preventing their escape. The commander of the battalion had not humiliated [the applicant] when making him stand wearing only military briefs in front of the battalion formation because later the commander had ordered him to put all his clothes back on. [The applicant] was standing half-naked in front of the battalion formation for a short period of time. The actions of captain [K.] and commanding officer [A.] constituted a minor offence, which entailed no social danger. Accordingly, [the applicant’s] request to institute criminal proceedings against them should be dismissed. The circumstances of the present case do not indicate any appearance of a criminal offence [within the meaning of the Criminal Code of Russia].” 35. On 11 February 2008 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the decision of 8 October 2007 in court. 36. On 6 October 2008 the impugned decision was quashed by the Investigating Committee of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Volgograd Garrison, which held the following: “The examination of the impugned decision shows that [the investigator] performed the inquiry in a perfunctory manner. His decision was premature and ill-founded. In particular, he did not interview all of the potential witnesses. It is accordingly impossible to render a well-founded decision concerning the impugned ... events. Taking into account the above I conclude that the refusal to institute criminal proceedings issued by [the investigator] on 8 October 2007 must be quashed as ill‑founded.” 37. On 7 October 2008 the District Court referred to the decision of 6 October 2008, having terminated court proceedings in connection with the applicant’s complaint. 38. The case was returned for additional investigation. 39. Between 6 and 16 October 2008 the investigator questioned thirty servicemen from the Military Unit. They did not confirm any of the applicant’s allegations. 40. On 16 October 2008 on the basis of their statements and the previously collected pieces of evidence, the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings. The investigator did not provide the content of the newly added statements in his decision of 16 October 2008 and it therefore contained no additional information on the matter but essentially read the same as the previous one. 41. According to the applicant, he received a copy of this decision on 25 February 2009 and then challenged it in court. 42. On 10 March 2009 the impugned decision was quashed by a higher investigative authority, which stated that “Although the inquiry was performed in a comprehensive manner, the investigator did not take into account the public reaction [in response to this case]. He should have ordered the military counter-intelligence services to perform an inquiry into the allegations [of the applicant and V.]. [Accordingly], the impugned decision is premature and ill-founded. Taking into account the above, I conclude that the refusal to institute criminal proceedings issued on 16 October 2007 must be quashed as ill-founded.” 43. The court proceedings were terminated and the case was sent back to the investigating authorities for further investigation of the matter. 44. During this round of the investigation the investigator performed an “additional inquiry” which “confirmed the statements made by [the applicant’s] fellow servicemen”. 45. On 20 March 2009 the investigating authorities again refused to open a criminal case in respect of the events. In addition to the reasoning which they had used before, they relied on the results of the “additional inquiry” which had established “no indication of criminal events”. 46. On 20 April 2009, after his military service was over, junior sergeant V. contacted the Soldiers’ Mothers Committee and stated that the initial statements he had made concerning his ill-treatment and the ill‑treatment of the applicant had been truthful. He explained that his later statements had been made under pressure from the command of the Military Unit. In his statements he mentioned that after the escape of June 2007 he had been beaten by the officers and had been kept in hospital for treatment in this connection. These statements were sent to the investigating authorities. 47. On 26 January 2011 the higher investigating authorities quashed the decision of 20 March 2009, providing a detailed list of the established defects of the inquiry. In its relevant part the decision read: “Despite the recommendations of [the higher authority] ordering the military counter-intelligence services to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of the [applicant] and [V.], the decision of 20 March 2009 was issued in the absence of such an inquiry. According to the claim which was brought [by the applicant] under Article 125 of the CCrP, [Gal.] and [V.] had directly witnessed the alleged ill-treatment. However, the competent authorities did not conduct a fresh interview with [V.] and never interrogated [Gal.]. The inquiry at issue was not comprehensive since the investigating authorities did not investigate [V.’s] alleged ill-treatment ... of 2007 ... In the circumstances of the present case it is impossible to issue a lawful decision with proper reasoning without taking additional investigative steps, including the conduct of an inquiry carried out by the military intelligence services and the questioning of [Gal.], [V.] and doctors attached to the military units. The investigating authorities must also assess the allegations which were made by [V.], and [the applicant] in their statements of 20 April 2009 and 11 February 2008 respectively. The former servicemen of the [Military Unit] should be re-interviewed too, if necessary.” 48. The case was remitted to the investigator for an additional investigation. 49. In the context of this round, the competent authorities studied the evidential material from an inquiry which had been opened into Gal.’s allegations that officers who were pointed out by the applicant had ill‑treated and “hazed” him and other serviceman of the Military Unit on several occasions. This inquiry resulted in a decision dated 8 October 2008 not to open a criminal case. 50. It does not seem that the investigative authorities questioned Gal. or complied with any of the recommendations set out in the decision of 26 January 2011. 51. In their decision of 11 February 2011 not to open a criminal case, they repeated their previous arguments, adding that the allegations made by Gal. were refuted by the results of the investigation of 2008. 52. The parties did not provide any documents concerning subsequent developments. From the Government’s submissions of 2 May 2011 it is apparent that on 23 March 2011 the higher investigating authorities again quashed the decision of 11 February 2011 and remitted the case for additional investigation, noting that the investigator had again failed to question Gal., to conduct an additional interview with junior sergeant V., to perform an inquiry into V.’s medical treatment of 2007 and to carry out other investigative actions. 53. The case file contains no information concerning the further development of the investigation.

{'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 Charlotte, North Carolina (the United States). 6. On 7 June 2008 the applicant married Ms K.A., a Croatian national, in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). On 29 November 2008 K.A. gave birth to their son, N.A. In May 2009 she moved to the United States of America to join her husband. 7. In June 2011 the applicant’s wife and son spent their summer holidays in Croatia. They were supposed to return to the United States on 31 August 2011. Instead, the applicant’s wife sent him an e-mail, informing him that she and their son were to remain in Croatia and that she had brought a civil action against him there, seeking a divorce (see paragraph 51 below). 8. On 7 September 2011 the applicant’s legal representative sent an e-mail to the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Ministarstvo zdravstva i socijalne skrbi, hereafter “the relevant Ministry”), as the Croatian Central Authority within the meaning of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”, see paragraph 61 below). She asked the Ministry to urgently contact the applicant’s wife and take other appropriate measures to seek the voluntary return of the child until the receipt of the official request under the Hague Convention from the United States Central Authority. 9. On 15 September 2011 the Ministry forwarded the applicant’s request to the competent local social welfare centre with a view to establishing his wife’s intentions regarding their son and the possibility of a voluntary return to the United States. The centre immediately invited her for an interview. During the interview of 26 September 2011 she stated that while living in the United States she had been subjected to constant psychological abuse by the applicant. She did not oppose the applicant’s having contact with their son, but insisted that any contact take place under the supervision of a child welfare professional. 10. On 3 October 2011 the Ministry received an official request from the United States Central Authority under the Hague Convention for the return of the applicant’s son. 11. On 13 October 2011 the Ministry forwarded the request for return to the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu) and thus instituted non-contentious proceedings for the return of the applicant’s son. The court received the request the next day. 12. On 24 October 2011 the court invited the local social welfare centre to submit a report on the applicant’s wife’s social and financial situation, the reasons for her taking the child to Croatia, the child’s general and psychological condition, and the potential effects on his mental development of any decision to return him to the United States. On the same day the court also invited the applicant’s wife to respond to her husband’s request for the boy to be returned. 13. In her response of 15 November 2011 the applicant’s wife opposed his request for the return of their child, with or without her. She submitted in particular that the applicant had agreed to her trip to Croatia and that his consent was not time-limited. She also stated that the applicant had expressly forbidden her to return to their flat in the United States, that he had been abusing her, and that there, unlike in Croatia, she had been completely dependent on him in every way (financially, economically, and in terms of accommodation). Lastly, she claimed that no significant changes had occurred in the care the child was receiving, given that she had been the one taking care of their son thus far, which was the reason why the child was very emotionally attached to her. 14. On 30 November 2011 the court reiterated its request of 24 October 2011 to the local social welfare centre. 15. On 13 December 2011 the local social welfare centre submitted its report and supplemented it, at the court’s request, six days later. The report stated that the applicant’s wife was taking adequate care of their son and recognised his needs, that she was emotionally positively focused on him and that he was affectionate towards her. The report also stated that she did not undermine the applicant’s role as a father, and that she encouraged the child to have contact with him, but that she felt the need to protect him from the applicant’s possible irrational behaviour, which concern the centre considered credible. The child was mentally stable, showed no signs of trauma due to the separation from his father, and had adapted well to the new situation. The report noted that the child was emotionally attached to his mother, with whom he had spent every day since birth, and that separation from her and returning him to his father would be traumatic. The centre therefore considered that returning the child to the United States would not be in his best interest. 16. On 22 December 2011 the applicant submitted to the court a certified copy of the decision of a court in North Carolina of 26 October 2011 granting him interim custody of his son. 17. In her submissions of 28 December 2011 his wife argued that the report of the social welfare centre suggested that returning her son to the United States would expose him to psychological harm or place him in an intolerable situation within the meaning of Article 13 paragraph 1 (b) of the Hague Convention (see paragraph 62 below). She therefore invited the court to dismiss the applicant’s request for return on that ground. 18. On 18 January 2012 the relevant Ministry asked the court to inform it of developments in the case. The court delivered the requested information on 8 February 2012. 19. On 26 January 2012 the court invited the applicant’s representative to submit rectified translations of the documents submitted on 22 December 2011, given that certain dates had been wrongly translated. The applicant did so on 9 February 2012. 20. In his submissions of 26 January and 17 February 2012 the applicant argued that the report and recommendation of the local social welfare centre did not correspond to the objectives, spirit and purpose of the Hague Convention. He explained that the purpose of the Hague Convention was the prompt return of the child, and not an assessment of the child’s adaptation to a new environment. The applicant further argued that his wife had not presented any evidence for her allegations of abuse, and that she had never intended to establish a permanent relationship with him. He averred that tolerating his wife’s conduct in the proceedings constituted a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Hague Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 21. In her submissions of 28 and 29 February 2012 the applicant’s wife replied by contesting all the applicant’s arguments, and submitted evidence in support of her allegations of abuse. In particular, she submitted a letter from the president and founder of the association for the protection of victims of domestic violence WISH, based in Charlotte, where she had sought help while living in the United States. She also stated that the applicant no longer lived in their matrimonial home in the United States and wondered where the child was supposed to return. 22. On 15 March 2012 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the return of the child. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows: “... having regard to the fact that the separation of N.A. from his mother and from a safe environment would without a doubt have harmful and traumatic consequences for his psychological development, and that granting the applicant’s request might cause psychological trauma to the child and place him in an unfavourable position within the meaning of Article 13 paragraph 1 (b) of the [Hague] Convention, and having regard to the mother’s fear that the child would, upon his return to the United States, be subject to psychological and verbal abuse, which fear was deemed justified by the psychologist and the social worker of the social welfare centre ... and having regard to the fact that on 12 July 2011 proceedings for divorce of the parties were instituted, in which proceedings the court should decide on custody of the child and on the other parent’s contact rights, the petitioner’s request must be dismissed, without violating Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights or Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of a Child, it was decided as in the operative part of this decision.” 23. On 17 April 2012 the applicant appealed against that decision, alleging procedural errors, incomplete findings of fact, and misapplication of substantive law as grounds for appeal. In particular, the applicant argued that his wife’s submissions of 28 and 29 February 2012 had been served on him together with the contested first-instance decision and thus in breach of the principle of equality of arms, that the court had not held a single hearing in the case, and that it had wrongly applied Article 13 paragraph 1 (b) of the Hague Convention. 24. On 2 July 2012 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) allowed the applicant’s appeal, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows: “... the first-instance court based [its] decision in part on undisputed facts, and in the relevant part on the arguments and the evidence submitted by the counterparty... even though it failed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to comment on them ... [T]herefore the petitioner’s appeal had to be allowed, the first-instance decision quashed and the case remitted ...” 25. On 27 August 2012 the decision of the Zagreb County Court was served on the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court. 26. In the resumed proceedings, on 17 October 2012 the applicant sought the withdrawal of Judge M.S.B., the first-instance court judge sitting in the case, for alleged bias on her part in favour of his wife. On 21 January 2013 the President of Zagreb Municipal Civil Court granted the application for the judge’s withdrawal, and on 30 January 2013 assigned the case to another judge. 27. In his submissions of 28 January 2013 the applicant invited the court to review recordings of his conversations with his son via Skype, and asked for a provisional measure ordering the seizure of his son’s passport with a view to preventing his wife from removing him from Croatia. 28. On 4 February 2013 the court invited the applicant to submit certificates from the relevant United States authorities on his son’s habitual residence in that country and the social background of the child within the meaning of Article 13 paragraph 3 of the Hague Convention (see paragraph 62 below). On 22 February 2013 the applicant submitted documents on his permanent residence and his son’s habitual residence in the United States, and on 19 March 2013 he submitted information on the social background of the child. 29. On 14 February 2013 the applicant urged the court to schedule a hearing. 30. On 28 February 2013 the court ordered the local social welfare centre to promptly assess whether the child was settled in his new environment in terms of Article 12 paragraph 2 of the Hague Convention (see paragraph 62 below). 31. In submissions she made on the same day, 28 February 2013, the applicant’s wife reiterated that she believed that the evidence showed that the applicant was abusive, and in that respect pointed to the opinion of the psychologist from the local social welfare centre, who had indicated that the applicant’s communication with his son via Skype constituted emotional blackmail and amounted to emotional abuse. She emphasised that she could not return to the United States, because her green card had expired and she did not have any means of supporting herself there. 32. On 26 March 2013 the local social welfare centre submitted the opinion of its psychologist prepared on the basis of interviews with the applicant’s wife and son. The psychologist stated that the child’s physical and mental development was normal and that he had adapted well. She emphasised that owing to his age and his mother’s constant care for him since birth the child was emotionally primarily attached to her; separating them would therefore be traumatising for him. 33. In his submissions of 8 April 2013 the applicant argued that the psychologist’s opinion was flawed, unprofessional and arbitrary. He therefore proposed that his son be examined by independent experts, namely an institution with no role in the proceedings. The court eventually agreed to the applicant’s proposal, and on 30 September and 31 October 2013 decided to obtain an opinion from a forensic expert in psychiatry (see paragraph 39 below). 34. In submissions made on 15 and 26 April 2013 the applicant’s wife commented on the documents on the child’s social background submitted by the applicant (see paragraph 28 above). She stated that those documents were not relevant, because they had not been provided by the competent authorities of the United States but by a private law firm lacking in professional competencies and jurisdiction for issuing such documents. She stated, inter alia, that the lawyer who had compiled the report did not speak Croatian and thus could not possibly have understood the applicant’s conversations with his son and make an assessment. 35. In his submissions of 3 May 2013 the applicant argued that his wife’s conduct in the proceedings amounted to abuse of process and warned the court that the resultant delay was operating in her favour. 36. On 6 May 2013 the court invited the applicant to submit evidence that his wife, as his son’s mother, could return to the United States, in particular that she would be provided with a visa, accommodation and a work permit. The applicant did so on 29 May 2013; his wife made further comments on 1 July 2013. 37. In his submissions of 27 September 2013 the applicant stated that the way the court had conducted the proceedings was unacceptable in view of their nature and the State’s obligation under the Hague Convention. He further submitted that his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had also been violated. 38. On 22 October 2013 the applicant’s wife responded to his submission, also citing Article 8 of the Convention. She also reiterated that she could no longer return to the United States, because her green card had expired. 39. On 5 December 2013 the forensic expert in psychiatry (see paragraph 33 above) submitted her expert opinion and report on whether the return to the United States would expose the child to psychological harm. The opinion and report were prepared after conducting two interviews with the applicant’s son on 20 and 27 November 2013, the first in the presence of the mother and the second in her absence. She stated that: (a) the child was well adapted to his new environment, (b) he was showing no signs of trauma, (c) the applicant’s wife did not have a negative influence on the child regarding his relationship with the applicant as his father, (d) the separation from his mother as primary caregiver and “safe base” would traumatise him, (e) transferring the child into a different environment would also constitute a trauma, but that he would be able to overcome it if his mother lived with him and if he lived in a harmonious environment, (f) the relationship between the child and his mother was positive, enabling him to develop a “secure attachment” to her, (g) the relationship between the child and his father could not be assessed, as the father had not been subjected to an expert assessment. As regards this last point the expert nevertheless made the following observations: “N. is a boy who is securely attached to his mother but also has a positive attitude towards his father, which means that the mother did not influence him [in that regard] by expressing negative views, stories, and so on ... One important factor is that the boy talks with his father, which he mentioned during the assessment, and in this way forms an opinion about him. What is most important however is that the parents coordinate their [behaviour] towards the child in order not to confuse him, which could jeopardise his normal mental development. During the assessment of the boy I did not find that such an issue was present ... [The child] does not object to going to America, but accepts it only if it is temporary and his mother can come along ... He does not show, verbally or non-verbally, any aversion to his father. It is therefore assumed that the mother influences him positively in that regard.” 40. On 2 January 2014 the relevant Ministry invited the Municipal Civil Court to speed up the proceedings and again submit a progress report (see paragraph 18 above). The court submitted the requested report on 14 February 2014. 41. In his submissions of 22 January 2014 the applicant commented on the expert report and opinion. He argued that the report suggested that his son had good memories of him and a positive attitude towards him, and that it was therefore evident that his return to the United States would not expose him to the risk envisaged in Article 13 paragraph 1 (b) of the Hague Convention. As regards the expert’s finding that the child’s return would be a traumatic experience for him, the applicant submitted that this would not have been the case had the domestic courts ordered his return within the time-limit set forth in Article 11 paragraph 2 of the Hague Convention. In any event, the evidence he submitted had suggested that his wife could accompany his son on his return to the United States, which according to the expert would have eliminated the risk of trauma. 42. On 31 January 2014 the applicant’s wife commented on the expert report and opinion by endorsing it. She argued that they, together with the previous opinions and reports of the local social welfare centre, suggested that it was evident the child should not be returned, as he would thereby suffer psychological trauma. The conditions set forth in Article 13 paragraph 1 (b) had therefore been met. 43. By a decision of 21 May 2014 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court dismissed the applicant’s request for his son to be returned. It first held that the applicant’s wife’s removal of their son from the United States to Croatia was “wrongful” within the meaning of Article 2 of the Hague Convention (see paragraph 62 below). It then held, relying exclusively on the opinion and report of the local social welfare centre of 13 December 2011 and the opinion of the forensic expert in psychiatry of 5 December 2013 (see paragraphs 15 and 39 above), that the applicant’s son’s return to the United States would expose him to risk envisaged in Article 13 paragraph 1 (b) of the said Convention, but only if he returned without his mother. However, since the applicant had not proved that she could freely return to the United States and get a job there, the court concluded that the conditions for refusing the return of the child set forth in that Article had been met. 44. On 11 June 2014 the applicant appealed against that decision. He referred to procedural errors, incomplete findings of facts, and misapplication of the substantive law as grounds for appeal. In particular, the applicant submitted that the first-instance court had, in breach of the principle of adversarial hearing, not held a single hearing in the case, and that it had not informed him of its decision to obtain an opinion from a forensic expert in psychiatry, thus preventing him from objecting to the choice of the expert. He further complained that he had not been involved in the expert’s assessment, even though he had previously expressed willingness to make himself available for such an assessment. The applicant also stated that the court had required him to prove that his wife could return to the United States and find a job there, instead of asking her to prove that she could not. It had thereby unjustifiably shifted the burden of proof to him as regards those matters. Moreover, as regards those matters the court had drawn the wrong conclusions from the evidence presented, and had embarked on an interpretation of foreign law it was not familiar with. Lastly, the applicant argued that the first-instance court had wrongly applied Article 13 paragraph 1 (b) of the Hague Convention. 45. By a decision of 22 October 2014 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision. 46. On 29 December 2014 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the second-instance decision. It would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). 47. Meanwhile, on 17 January 2013 the applicant lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Zagreb County Court about the length of the above proceedings. He argued that the proceedings had lasted for one year and four months without a scheduled hearing or a decision rendered, contrary to Article 11 of the Hague Convention (see paragraph 62 below) and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 48. By a decision of 15 June 2014 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant’s request. It held that the proceedings complained of had thus far lasted some two years and eight months, which could not be considered excessive, especially as there had been no substantial periods of inactivity. 49. On 9 September 2014 the applicant appealed against that decision. 50. By a decision of 20 November 2014 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision of 15 June 2014. 51. Meanwhile, on 12 July 2011 the applicant’s wife brought a civil action against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court seeking a divorce and custody of their son. 52. On 18 July 2011 she asked the court to issue a provisional measure granting her interim custody of N. until delivery of the final judgment in those proceedings. 53. In his submissions of 3 July 2012 the applicant argued that the Croatian courts lacked international jurisdiction in the case, and submitted a certified translation of the decision of a court in North Carolina of 27 April 2012 granting him sole custody of his son. 54. At the hearing held on 9 July 2012 the court dismissed the applicant’s objection regarding lack of jurisdiction. 55. By a decision of 15 October 2012 the court issued the provisional measure requested by the applicant’s wife and awarded her interim custody of their son. 56. On 21 November 2012 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Zagreb County Court. 57. On 24 April 2014 that court returned the case file to the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court, warning it that under Article 16 of the Hague Convention the judicial or administrative authorities of the State to which the child had been removed were not entitled to decide on the right of custody of the child until it had been determined under the Hague Convention that the child was not to be returned (see paragraph 62 below). Accordingly, it instructed the Municipal Civil Court to ascertain whether a final decision had been given in the proceedings for the return of the child. If no such decision was adopted, the County Court further instructed the Municipal Court to stay the proceedings until the delivery of such a 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. All the applicants were prosecuted in Russia for various crimes. They were arrested and detained pending investigation and trial. Their detention was ordered and extended by the courts. The detention orders were essentially based on the gravity of the charges as the primary ground supporting the risk of the applicants’ absconding and interfering with the course of justice. The detention and extension orders used stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures. 5. Mr Pushchelenko and Mr Isachkov were co-defendants in the same criminal proceedings. 6. On 15 October 2009 a criminal case was opened into murder of Mr G. On 15 and 16 January 2010 Mr Pushchelenko and Mr Isachkov were arrested on suspicion of their involvement in the murder. On 22 and 25 January 2010 they were formally charged. On 3 and 7 September 2010 they were additionally charged with fraud in respect of the Mr G.’s flat. 7. On 31 December 2010 their case was submitted to the Primorskiy Regional Court for trial. On 29 February 2012 Mr Pushchelenko and Mr Isachkov were convicted as charged and sentenced to thirteen years’ imprisonment. On 24 October 2012 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment on appeal on account of procedural irregularities and ordered a retrial. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown. 8. Mr Pushchelenko and Mr Isachkov were in detention on remand at least until 24 January 2013. 9. On 4 March 2003 a criminal case was opened into the murder of Mr P. Subsequently this case was joined with an unspecified number of other criminal cases. On 27 May 2010 Mr Fobyanchuk was arrested on suspicion of his involvement in those acts. On 1 June 2010 he was formally charged with one count of murder and one count of attempted murder. On 15 April 2011 Mr Fobyanchuk was additionally charged with two counts of attempted murder. It appears that the charges in respect of the two counts of attempted murder were dropped but on 27 August 2011 Mr Fobyanchuk was additionally charged with illegal dealing in explosive substances. 10. On 26 March 2012 Mr Fobyanchuk’s case was referred to the Primorskiy Regional Court for trial. He stood trial along with ten co‑defendants. 11. As of the date of Mr Fobyanchuk’s last letter of 5 August 2014, the trial has been pending and he has remained in custody. 12. On 7 September 2005 a criminal case was opened into the attempted murder of Mr Ye. Subsequently this case was joined with an unspecified number of other criminal cases. On 27 May 2010 Mr Kasyanov was arrested on suspicion of his involvement in the murder, together with Mr Fobyanchuk (see the case above). On 1 June 2010 he was formally charged. On 15 April 2011 Mr Kasyanov was additionally charged with the illegal sale of a Kalashnikov assault rifle. 13. On 26 March 2012 Mr Kasyanov’s case was submitted to the Primorskiy Regional Court for examination on the merits. He stood trial along with ten co-defendants. 14. As of the date of Mr Kasyanov’s last letter of 22 November 2013, the trial has been pending and he has remained in custody. 15. On 27 November 2010 Mr Lysenko was arrested on suspicion of his involvement in the murder of Mr B. On 5 August 2011 he was additionally charged with kidnapping, bribe-taking, money-laundering and perverting the course of justice. On 8 November 2011 the charges of running a criminal syndicate and of illegal dealing with firearms and explosives were added to the charge sheet. On 22 February 2012 Mr Lysenko was charged with an additional count of illegal dealing in firearms. 16. On 21 March 2013 the case of Mr Lysenko and seven co-defendants was remitted to the Saratov Regional Court for a trial by a jury. On 18 September and 12 December 2013 the Regional Court extended the authorised period of detention in respect of the applicant and three other co-defendants, each time for a further three months. In granting further extensions, the Regional Court referred collectively to the four co-defendants, without examining their individual situations. 17. On 17 February 2014 the Regional Court declared a mistrial. The trial started anew from the stage of jury selection. On 17 March and 10 June 2014 the Regional Court extended the authorised period of detention in respect of the applicant and three other co-defendants, each time for a further three months. In granting further extensions, the Regional Court referred collectively to the four co-defendants, without examining their individual situations. The extension orders were upheld on appeal on 28 March and 25 June 2014, respectively. 18. As of the date of Mr Lysenko’s last letter of 5 September 2014, the trial has been pending and he has remained in custody. 19. On 22 May 2012 the Court gave judgment in the case of Idalov v. Russia, in which it found in particular a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the applicant’s detention from 29 October 2002 to 24 November 2003 ([GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 142-149, 22 May 2012). Under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Idalov EUR 7,150 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (ibid., § 208). 20. On 26 December 2012 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judicial decisions in Mr Idalov’s criminal proceedings because the European Court of Human Rights found them to have been incompatible with the Convention. 21. Subsequently Mr Idalov brought a claim against the Russian Ministry of Finance for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage that he had incurred in particular on account of his excessive pre-trial detention in the period between 29 October 2002 and 24 November 2003. 22. By judgment of 1 April 2014, the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow granted his claim in part and awarded him 50,000 Russian roubles in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 26 June 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. In determining the amount of the award, the courts had regard to a number of factors, including the fact that an award had been previously made 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'}

6. The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Moscow. 7. On 15 July 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He claimed that on the same day, in an attempt to extract a confession, a police officer had beaten him during an interview. 8. On 16 July 2004 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the applicant’s detention until 19 July 2004. By further orders of 19 July, 3 September and 29 October 2004, 1 March, 3 May, 20 and 28 October 2005, and 17 January and 4 April 2006, the Zamoskvoretskiy and Izmaylovskiy District Courts extended the authorised period of the applicant’s detention. These orders cited the gravity of the charges, the possibility of the applicant’s absconding and the complexity of the criminal case as the main reasons for the continued detention. 9. From 23 July to 10 September 2004 the applicant was placed in remand prison IZ-77/1 in Moscow. He claimed that the facility had been overcrowded and that the cells had been in a poor sanitary condition. 10. On 20 July 2006 the Izmaylovskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence. 11. On 20 September 2004 the applicant ‒ who by that time had been transferred to remand prison IZ-77/6 in Moscow ‒ dispatched a complaint to the Court through the prison postal service. 12. For unknown reasons, instead of sending the letter to the Court the prison authorities sent it to the Administration of the President of Russia. From there it was transferred to the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office. 13. On 14 October 2004 the applicant was notified that a prosecutor in the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office had examined his complaint to the Court and considered his allegations to be unfounded. Among other things, the applicant was informed that he should await a final decision in his criminal case in order to have exhausted the available domestic remedies in respect of his grievances prior to complaining to the Court. 14. On 27 October 2004 the applicant sent another letter to the Court which read as follows: “Complaint. [Hereby I] lodge [this] complaint about unlawful actions of the [Russian] executive and judiciary [authorities]. I consider that their actions have violated Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the European Convention [on Human Rights]. I will submit all the necessary evidence [thereof] together with the completed official application form. I request you to register my complaint, to attribute it a number and to send me an official application form, an instruction for filling it in and the text of the Convention. I request you to send the reply at the address of my detention.” The letter reached the Court on 23 November 2004. 15. On 23 November 2004 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow examined the applicant’s complaint regarding the examination of his correspondence of 20 September 2004 by the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office and found: “The applicant complained about... the rejection [by the deputy prosecutor] of his complaint [to the European Court of Human Rights]. Prosecutor L. submitted that the complaint should be rejected on the following grounds. Despite the fact that the applicant’s letter was addressed to the European Court [of Human Rights], the prison [authorities] sent it to the Administration of the President of Russia, as is apparent from the stamp on the envelope. The Administration of the President, in turn, redirected Mr Kopanitsyn’s correspondence to the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office ... Mr Kopanitsyn’s letter was allocated to [its] division 35 and examined on the merits. The fact that the [personnel of the] remand prison dispatched the complaint to the Administration of the President of Russia instead of the European Court [of Human Rights], is beyond the scope of the prosecutor’s competencies and does not invalidate the prosecutor’s actions. Having regard to the parties’ submissions and having examined the documents, the court considers that the complaint must be rejected... and that there are no grounds to declare the actions of the deputy prosecutor unlawful, as the applicant’s complaint was forwarded from the Administration of the President of Russia and [therefore] the prosecutor’s office [was obliged] to examine it. The fact that the [personnel of the] remand prison dispatched the complaint to the Administration of the President of Russia instead of the European Court [of Human Rights], is beyond the scope of the prosecutor’s competencies and is not a subject of the present proceedings.” This decision was essentially confirmed by the same court on 2 February 2005 in response to repeated complaints from the applicant in connection with the same problem. 16. The decisions of 23 November 2004 and 2 February 2005 were upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 23 December 2004 and 7 April 2005, respectively. 17. In the meantime, on 24 November 2004 the applicant received another letter from the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office, which stated: “It was established that your complaint addressed to the European Court of Human Rights was rightfully examined by the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office [acting] on assignment from the Administration of the President of Russia. According to Article 35 of the Convention on Human Rights, the [European] Court is competent to examine applications only when all the domestic remedies were exhausted... and lodged no later than six months from the date of the final domestic decision. As you [currently have the status of] an accused in a criminal case which has not yet been heard by [the domestic] courts, the European Court of Human Rights may accept [your] complaint only after the judgment in your case would be given and the final decision of the supervisory review instance [court] would be taken.” 18. In letters dated 1 and 22 February 2005 the Moscow Department of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences informed the applicant that there had been no malfunctioning of the prison postal service and that they had no explanation as to why the application form of 20 September 2004 had reached the President’s Office rather than the Court. 19. On 22 February 2005 the applicant submitted the completed application form which reached the Court on 25 April 2005. 20. On 7 September and 27 November 2009 the applicant, who was serving the sentence in a correctional colony at the time, sent two letters to Mr Finogenov, his representative before the Court. It appears that these letters were dispatched by the colony administration on 31 October and 10 December 2009, 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'}

4. The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Sudiyivka. 5. On 13 March 2002 the body of Eduard Kryvonis, the applicant’s adult son, with numerous injuries, was found lying on a village street. According to a subsequent forensic assessment, he died between 2 and 4 a.m. on that date. 6. On the same date the Novosanzharsky district police examined the site and questioned some potential witnesses. They discovered, in particular, that the night before his death, Eduard Kryvonis had been visiting friends and had left for home with his bicycle that had gone missing. 7. On 11 April 2002 the prosecutor’s office ordered a criminal investigation into the applicant’s son’s death. 8. On 17 April 2002 the police drew up an investigation action plan. 9. On 23 April 2002 the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as an injured party. During a questioning on an unspecified date she alleged, inter alia, that her son could have been killed by M. 10. On 11 June 2002 the police stayed the proceedings as they could not find any useful leads. 11. On 13 June 2002 the district prosecutor’s office quashed this decision as premature. It instructed the police, among other actions, to take comprehensive measures in searching for the victim’s bicycle and to question some local residents known as prone to violence, including M. and K. 12. In October 2002 Z. and L. confessed that in the company of K. they had encountered Eduard Kryvonis on his way home late at night on 12 March 2002 and beaten him up. 13. On 28 October 2002 Z. and L. retracted their confessions, alleging that they had been extracted from them under duress. 14. On 10 November 2002 the proceedings were discontinued in view of absence of any useful leads. 15. On 14 March 2003 the prosecutor’s office quashed this decision, ordering further investigative steps to be taken. They noted that the investigation had already been suspended on similar grounds without appropriate action having been taken. 16. On 27 May 2003, 10 September 2003, 29 April and 15 July and 16 December 2004 five further decisions to stay the proceedings were taken. 17. On 10 July and 24 October 2003, 12 May, 30 September 2004 and 31 March 2005 respectively those decisions were quashed by the prosecutor’s office, which found that not all of its previous instructions had been duly complied with. 18. On 23 August 2005 D. confessed that late at night on 12 March 2002 M., V. and himself had engaged in a fight with Eduard Kryvonis and had beaten him. 19. On 24 August 2005 a confrontation between D. and M. was organized, during which the former confirmed his confessions, while the latter denied any accusations. V. had died by the time D. confessed. 20. On 16 January 2006, responding to the applicant’s complaint, the Deputy Head of the Chief Investigative Department of the Ministry of Interior stated that the investigation had been “patchy, passive”, “conducted at a low professional level and not in conformity with the methodology of investigating this category of offences”; and marked by “loss of time and sources of evidence”. He noted, in particular, that the case-file featured no documents explaining a one-month delay after the discovery of the body and before the initiation of the criminal proceedings; that no meaningful and prompt action had been taken to locate the purportedly missing bicycle; that no comprehensive measures had been taken to verify whether M. could be involved in the crime, notwithstanding the applicant’s suspicions corroborated by some other evidence; and that the alibis of M., D. and K. had not been verified. The officer further regretted that the police had thought of sending Eduard Kryvonis’ clothes for a forensic assessment only two years after his death and that at that time it was discovered that the clothes were missing. In addition, the officer pointed to a number of shortcomings in drafting and filing procedural documents and regretted that on numerous occasions the proceedings had been unjustifiably stayed without the instructions of the prosecutor’s office having been properly complied with. 21. On 16 June 2006 the police searched M.’s household and seized a bicycle, which the applicant identified as her son’s. M. disagreed and argued that he had bought the bicycle from Dm., who had confirmed M.’s submissions. 22. On 25 March 2008 the police took a fresh decision to stay the proceedings, referring to insufficiency of objective evidence to indict M. or D. and absence of any other leads. 23. On 23 July 2008 the prosecutor’s office quashed this decision on the grounds similar to those mentioned above. 24. In January 2009, following the death of D., the police requested the Novosanzharsky District Court to close the proceedings in view of the death of D. and V., whom they considered the principal suspects. 25. The applicant objected to the police’s proposal, submitting, inter alia, that charges should be pressed against M., implicated by late D. in her son’s beating. 26. On 2 April 2009 the court rejected the police’s request as not based on law. 27. On numerous occasions the applicant complained to various authorities about the protracted nature of the investigation and its various procedural shortcomings. On various dates the prosecutor’s office (in particular, on 2 July and 15 August 2003, 19 February 2004, 15 June 2005, 23 April 2007 and 26 September 2008) and the department of Interior (in particular, on 29 March 2007, 26 May and 13 November 2008 and 21 October 2010) acknowledged that the investigation had featured unnecessary delays and instances of procedural inactivity. They also notified the applicant that four police officers were subjected to disciplinary sanctions on account of their failure to ensure the adequacy of the investigation. 28. On 15 November 2011 the deputy chief of the investigative unit of the Poltava Regional Department of Interior informed the applicant, in response to her complaint, that on 29 September 2011 an investigator in charge of her case had been reprimanded by way of a disciplinary sanction for poor organization of the investigation and the case was transferred to another officer. It appears that the investigation is still pending.

{'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, who are brothers, were born in 1986, 1987 and 1985 respectively and live in Bucharest. 6. In the early hours of 17 March 2008, around five minutes after midnight, the applicants, together with their parents, decided to go to a police station to report that the applicant Marius-Romeo Chinez had been a victim of crime. They stopped a taxi on the street and because the taxi driver, B.G., refused to take them, they got involved in a verbal dispute with him and one of the applicants punched the bonnet of the car. Shortly afterwards, several taxi drivers from the same taxi company arrived at the scene. A team of two police officers (D.M. and F.I.) who were patrolling the area also arrived at the scene of the incident. They were followed by three additional police units. 7. In the presence of the police the dispute between the applicants and the taxi drivers escalated, with the applicant Mihai Chinez being hit in the face. When he tried to retaliate, the police handcuffed him and took him to their car. At the same time the applicant Ionuţ Ludovic Chinez was hit on the head by an unknown person and lost consciousness. When he saw his brother lying on the ground, the applicant Mihai Chinez refused to get into the police car. At this point the three police officers who had hold of him started hitting him and used their electric stun gun to force him into their car. Afterwards, Ionuţ Ludovic Chinez was lifted off the ground, handcuffed and put into a police car. The applicant Marius-Romeo Chinez, who was watching the scene from a distance, was pushed to the ground by two policemen, handcuffed and taken to another police car nearby. 8. The applicants were then taken to the police station, where Mihai and Marius-Romeo were punched and kicked in the stomach and chest by the police officers who had brought them in. After several hours of waiting without being questioned and without making a statement, Marius-Romeo was taken by ambulance, under police escort, to the Floreasca Emergency Hospital, where he had treatment for two days. 9. The other two applicants were questioned separately by different police officers. On 17 March 2008, at around 4 p.m., when a lawyer hired by their father arrived, they were allowed to leave the police station. (b) The Government’s account of the events 10. According to the incident report drafted by the chief of the police units involved, on 17 March 2008 at around 00.20 a.m. the team of two police officers who were on patrol had seen a group of five persons attacking a taxi driver. When they intervened to stop the fight and to identify the persons involved, the applicants became aggressive towards them too and punched them. The officers asked for support and additional patrol units arrived at the scene. Subsequently, the decision was taken to accompany the attackers, namely the applicants, to the police station to identify them, but because they refused to go the police officers had to use force and handcuff them. The report further mentioned that the applicants had damaged a taxi belonging to Mr. B.G., who was identified by name, age, personal identity number and address. The report also stated: “Before the arrival of the police units, several colleagues came to protect the taxi driver and assaulted the five [people]; because of the injuries he sustained Marius-Romeo Chinez was taken to the Floreasca Emergency Hospital, where he was admitted to the surgical ward ... On the occasion of the investigation at the crime scene four eyewitnesses were identified and gave statements ...” 11. The report concluded that, in accordance with an order given by the prosecutor by telephone, an investigation was immediately launched in connection with assault on police officers by the applicants and their father. 12. On the same day the chief asked for forensic expert reports from the National Forensic Medicine Institute in connection with the injuries suffered by police officers F.S.I. and N.C. The reports issued on 14 May 2008 confirm that officer F.S.I. had a 4 x 1 cm ecchymosis and excoriation on the left lumbar region, which could have been caused on 17 March 2008 by being hit with a hard object, and which required one to two days’ medical treatment. With respect to officer N.C., the report mentioned that he had a 2 x 2 cm ecchymosis in the left occipital region, which could have been caused by being hit with a hard object on 17 March 2008 and which required one to two days’ medical treatment. 13. According to a forensic medical report issued on 2 April 2008, Mihai Chinez had a haematoma of 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm in the occipital area, numerous ecchymoses on the face, arms and left leg, and five electrical burns on the left thigh. It was considered that the injuries, which could have occurred on 17 March 2008, were caused by being hit with a hard object, and required two to three days’ medical treatment. 14. According to a forensic medical report issued in June 2008, Marius-Romeo Chinez had an excoriation of 3 x 2 cm on the right of the forehead, a 1.5 x 1 cm ecchymosis outside the right eye, several ecchymoses and haematomas on the head, a 1 cm wound on the upper lip which had been sutured, several ecchymoses of 7 x 3 cm and 6 x 4 cm on the back and the lower right thorax, as well as on the right elbow. The report mentioned that he was drunk when he was brought to the Emergency Hospital. It was considered that the injuries, which could have been inflicted on 17 March 2008, had been caused by being hit with and against a hard object or surface, and required eight to nine days’ medical treatment. 15. A forensic medical report issued in August 2008 mentioned that Ionuţ Ludovic Chinez had a haematoma of 1 x 0.5 x 0.3 cm on the right side of the head and two ecchymoses on the right thigh. He also had limited capacity to open his mouth because of an injury to the right side of the jaw. The report concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted on 17 March 2008 by being hit with and against hard surfaces and objects, and that they required one to two days’ medical treatment. 16. On 7 July 2008 the applicants brought criminal proceedings against the police officers who were involved in the events of 17 March 2008, for abusive behaviour, unlawful arrest and misconduct. They claimed that on 17 March 2008 they had been beaten by police officers both before and after they were taken to the police station, following an incident they had been involved in with a taxi driver. 17. The investigation of the applicants’ complaint conducted by N.I., a police officer from the Control Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, commenced by taking statements from the applicants on 11, 12 and 14 August 2008. They described the course of the events as mentioned in paragraphs 6 to 9 above. The applicant Ionuţ Ludovic Chinez stated that, while he was approaching the two police officers who were handcuffing his brother Mihai, he was hit on the head and lost consciousness. He further mentioned that after his arrival at the police station he had not been ill-treated. The applicant Mihai Chinez stated that “he was told later that [Ionuţ Ludovic] had been hit by taxi drivers and policemen”. The applicants mentioned that they did not know the names of the taxi drivers involved in the incident or of the police officers present at the scene. Lastly, they requested criminal sanctions against the police officers who had assaulted them both in the street and inside the police station. 18. On 11 August 2008, J.V., the applicants’ mother, who was present during the incident, declared that she had seen around twenty or thirty taxi drivers hitting the applicants Mihai and Ionuţ Ludovic Chinez. Then she had seen the two police officers pushing Marius-Romeo to the ground, hitting him and handcuffing him. She then stated that when the two police officers saw Ionuţ Ludovic lying on the ground they ran towards him, dragged him to their car, slapped him, turned him over with his face to the ground and handcuffed him. By this time all the taxi drivers had left the scene. Once they arrived at the police station she was not allowed to enter or to contact her sons. After approximately one hour she saw the applicant Marius-Romeo being taken away by ambulance, with his handcuffs still on and under police escort. 19. The investigation continued with the identification of the police officers involved in the incident. In this respect, on 20 August 2008, the operational order of 17 March 2008 as well as the incident report drafted by the police chief (see paragraph 10 above) were attached to the investigation file. 20. On 24 August 2008 N.I. took statements from police officers D.M. and F.S.I. They declared that they had been on patrol together in a police car when they saw several taxis and several individuals hitting another person. They immediately approached the scene of the incident and asked the aggressors to stop. When they refused the two officers called for back-up, and then intervened in order to remove from the crowd one person who was violent and had blood on his face. When they tried to immobilise this person he went up to a taxi and hit its windscreen with his fist, breaking it. They decided to handcuff him, and at that moment he kicked F.S.I. in the chest and refused to get into the police car, pointing to his brother, who had been beaten and was lying on the ground, and asking them to call an ambulance. Then they put him into the police car with the help of two other colleagues and drove him to their police station. They mentioned in their statement that they did not use any physical or psychological pressure on the person in question, and that they were not equipped with electric stun guns. When they arrived at the police station the person was identified as Mihai Chinez and “was taken over by officer F.L. from the criminal investigations unit and other colleagues who continued the investigation”. 21. The same day officer D.A.M. gave a statement in which she mentioned that she was part of one of the units called as back-up by officers D.M. and F.S.I. When she arrived at the scene she found one person pointing out a taxi driver who had allegedly just beaten his brother. She got back into her car and drove in the direction indicated but could not find the taxi driver. Then she returned to the scene and, according to her statement, she “identified two eyewitnesses who could describe the incident and they accompanied her to the police station”. She further declared that, once inside the police station, she did not participate in the questioning and did not physically or verbally assault any of the persons involved in the incident. 22. On 26 August 2008, in a note drafted by officer N.I., police officers D.M., Z.C., N.C., F.I., D.D.M., D.A., P.M.C. and S.L.E. were identified as having been present during the incident under investigation “together with other public order forces”. 23. On 5 September 2008 officer N.G., who was on duty at the police station on the night of the incident, gave a statement mentioning that he had helped his colleagues D.M. and F.I. to identify the applicants and their parents, and took a statement from J.V., the applicant’s mother. 24. On 24 and 25 September 2008 statements were taken from officers F.L.C. and D.D.M. They stated that they had not been on duty on the night of the incident, but were called in and asked to come to the police station. When they arrived they were informed about the incident and asked to help their colleagues. F.L.C. declared that he had heard statements from two eyewitnesses. D.D.M. declared that he had questioned Mihai Chinez. Both officers declared that they had not assaulted any of the participants in the incident. 25. On 25 September 2008 investigating officer N.I. took a statement from officer A.S, who had also been called in from home to the police station in the early hours of 17 March 2008. He stated that “at the station there were a number of people, including taxi drivers, witnesses and members of the Chinez family”. He then proceeded to question Ionuţ Ludovic Chinez. He continued by stating that he was aware that the applicants were being investigated for charges of assault against police officers. Lastly, he concluded that between 2005 and 2007 he was the community police officer in charge of the area in which the applicants lived. He stated in this respect that the applicants were disruptive individuals who had been sanctioned on numerous occasions for disturbing public order, and that in his opinion their complaint was “biased and based on untruths”. 26. The statements allegedly taken from the applicants and eyewitnesses immediately after the incident inside the police station were not included in the investigation file. 27. On 2 October 2009 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest Court of Appeal decided to relinquish jurisdiction to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest County Court. On 14 January 2010 it was decided that the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest Court of Appeal was competent to examine the case after all, and the file was sent back to them. 28. On 15 and 17 March 2011 officers F.L.C., A.S. and D.D.M. were heard again, this time before the prosecutor. In addition to his initial statement given in 2008, officer F.L.C. pointed out that, once inside the police station and while he was handcuffed, the applicant Mihai Chinez had banged his own head against the wall and the floor several times. 29. On 1 June 2011 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the criminal complaint lodged by the applicants against some of the police officers who had taken part in the incident of 17 March 2008, in particular those officers who had questioned the applicants after they were taken to the police station, on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed by them. It held that following the incident the applicants had been restrained by police officers and taken to the police station for identification and questioning, because a car had been destroyed during the incident and police officers had been assaulted. It was further held that when they reached the police station it was already apparent from physical evidence that the applicants had been involved in a violent incident. There was therefore no evidence in the criminal investigation file to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the police officers who questioned the applicants at the police station, in particular A.S, F.L.C. and D.D.M., had acted violently against the applicants. Moreover, it was held that one of the applicants, namely Mihai Chinez, had inflicted injuries on himself. The prosecutor finally decided that the criminal investigation in respect of the remaining police officers, not identified by name, should be continued by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest County Court. 30. The applicants complained against this decision, arguing, inter alia, that no statements had ever been taken from any of the taxi drivers involved in the incident. They also argued that they had been hit by the taxi drivers in the presence of the police officers, who had done nothing to protect them. On the contrary, the police officers had also brutally attacked them, immobilising them in the street and then beating them up once they were inside the police station. They further alleged that two witnesses, namely I.S. and the applicants’ legal representative, had seen the injuries suffered by them but were never called to testify. 31. On 30 June 2011 the applicants’ complaint was rejected as ill-founded by the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 32. The applicants appealed against the prosecutors’ decisions before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, reiterating their previous arguments (see paragraph 30 above). Their appeal was rejected with final effect on 20 October 2011. In reaching this decision the Bucharest Court of Appeal firstly considered that sufficient investigative action had been taken, such as taking statements from the applicants and the police officers present in the police station, and, because the alleged ill-treatment took place in a police station, no other evidence was available that could verify the applicants’ complaint with respect to police officers A.S, F.L.C. and D.D. The court further held that it could not decide with respect to the incident which took place in the street and which involved the taxi drivers, because it was the object of an ongoing investigation conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest County Court. 33. The criminal investigation with respect to the rest of the police officers and concerning the incident which took place in the street is still pending before the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest County Court. 34. The criminal investigation against the applicants for assaulting police officers (see paragraph 11 above) has also not been completed to date.

{'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 1966, 1960, 1953, 1980 and live in Budapest, Pápa, Budapest and Répcelak, respectively. 7. From 2008 Mr Mester was employed as a civil servant in a government ministry. His employment was terminated in 2010. His former employer paid him, after payroll burdens, a net amount of 2,500,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 7,800 euros (EUR)), including payment for unused annual leave and an additional three months’ salary. 8. Mr Gőgös was employed in a government ministry from 2006 as a civil servant. Following the termination of his employment in 2010, his former employer paid him severance payment in the net amount of HUF 5,200,000 (EUR 16,300) corresponding to six months’ salary and payment for unused annual leave. 9. From 2005 Ms Zimay was employed by a State-owned company. Her employment was terminated by mutual agreement in January 2010. Under this agreement, the employer paid her a gross amount of HUF 25,900,000 (EUR 81,200), including payment for unused annual leave and an additional eight months’ salary. The severance payment was subject to payroll burdens in the amount of HUF 12,400,000 (EUR 38,900). 10. From 2003 Ms Hegedűs was employed as a civil servant in various government ministries. Following the termination of her employment in 2010, her former employer paid her severance payment in the net amount of HUF 3,100,000 (EUR 9,700) after deduction of payroll burdens. 11. Under new legislation (see paragraph 12 below) the severance payments were subsequently taxed at a 98% rate in their part exceeding HUF 3.5 million; the income tax and social security contributions already paid were deducted from the tax payable. Thus, Mr Mester paid additional tax in the amount of HUF 1,400,000 (EUR 4,400), Mr Gőgös in the amount of HUF 4,000,000 (EUR 1,300), Ms Zimay in the amount of HUF 11,100,000 (EUR 34,900) and Ms Hegedűs in the amount of HUF 2,000,000 (EUR 6,300).

{'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 1956 and lives in Msida. 7. On 8 September 2009 the applicant was arrested. A search of a hotel room close to where he was apprehended revealed a number of packets of cannabis (weighing approximately 15 kg). The following day he was questioned and made a statement. On 10 September 2009, two days after his arrest, he and some other Maltese and foreign suspects were charged with the possession of cannabis not for their own exclusive use and conspiracy for the purposes of drug trafficking. They were brought before a magistrate (sitting in the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry) and remanded in custody. 8. On 25 March 2010, following multiple bail requests which were rejected by the relevant courts, the applicant lodged constitutional redress proceedings, complaining ‒ inter alia ‒ that there had been a breach of his rights under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and requesting his immediate release as per Article 5 § 4. 9. By a judgment of 12 August 2010, following a thorough assessment of the factual circumstances and the Court’s relevant case-law, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction dismissed the applicant’s claims, and thus did not order his release. It pointed out, however, that the decision was without prejudice to any remedies which he would be entitled to request at the proper time and if the need arose. 10. The applicant appealed. On 18 January 2011, pending the constitutional appeal proceedings, the applicant was granted bail subject to certain conditions (including a curfew order and reporting to the police twice daily, as well as residing in an apartment rented for that purpose) against a number of guarantees, including a bail bond in the form of a deposit of 50,000 euros (EUR) and a further personal guarantee of EUR 15,000. 11. Since the specified amount was not paid, he remained in custody. 12. By a judgment of 14 February 2011 the Constitutional Court found a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 5 § 3 [and § 4] in view of the ongoing passage of time since the first-instance judgment, during which period the applicant’s requests had continued to be repeatedly rejected. Although the court was empowered to order release and alter the bail conditions imposed ‒ noting that by the time of the judgment the applicant had been formally granted bail ‒ it did not deem it appropriate to order release as or take any other action. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000. 13. On 18 February 2011 the applicant asked the investigating court (Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry) to reduce the amount of the bail deposit. 14. By a decision of 22 February 2011 the Court of Magistrates, having heard submissions, reduced the deposit to EUR 40,000 and increased the personal guarantee to EUR 60,000. 15. On 29 March 2011, still unable to pay, the applicant asked the court to reduce the deposit even further. He referred to his wife’s testimony to the effect that the applicant and his family did not possess such funds. 16. By a decision of 4 May 2011 the Court of Magistrates, having heard the submissions, reduced the deposit to EUR 15,000 and reduced the personal guarantee to EUR 30,000 (allowing the option of a third-party surety for that amount). However, it required that, before any surety could assume the obligation, proof of the surety’s financial capacity to furnish the requested amount be submitted. 17. A further request to reduce the amounts was filed by the applicant on 19 July 2011. He reiterated that he did not have the financial means to pay the specified deposit. He stated that he had four dependent children and a wife back in the United Kingdom who barely had enough money to live on and struggled to meet their financial obligations, including paying the children’s school fees and the mortgage. He further submitted that since he had been detained in Malta, the family business had had to be wound up and, to make matters worse, his wife’s medical condition, which prevented her from being gainfully employed, had deteriorated. The family had been living on their meagre savings, of which very little was left at that stage. The amount required for the deposit was, in his view, not reasonable considering his means and financial status. Moreover, he had been in custody for over twenty months and despite the Constitutional Court having found a violation of his rights under Article 5 § 3 in respect of the bail refusals, he had to date not been able to enjoy that right in practice. The applicant’s wife testified to this effect. 18. By a decision of the Court of Magistrates of 22 July 2011, after hearing the parties’ submissions and the applicant’s wife’s testimony, the court rejected the request. It noted that, according to the documents presented, the matrimonial home (which was a substantial property, demonstrating they were not an average family) was still owned by the applicant and his wife, although burdened with a substantial mortgage. Moreover, the applicant’s wife had sold off the family shoe business in 2010 “implying the inflow of a substantial amount of money within the family.” In the light of previous decisions, and the fact that the accused had no ties with Malta, the court considered that a bail deposit of EUR 15,000 was commensurate with the charges preferred against him. 19. The applicant filed a further request on 26 July 2011, pointing out that his wife had not stated that the family business had been sold but rather that it had closed down since the applicant was in detention and the applicant’s wife was too ill to run the business. She had also emphasized that the financial means at their disposal were limited since the applicant had not been working for the past two years and she was precluded from working due to her illness, meaning that their savings had been used to meet the daily needs of the family and to pay the mortgage. Moreover, although the house seemed to be of a certain value, this had to be seen in the context of the British property market and the fact that putting the house up for sale was not envisaged. The applicant thus asked the court to review his wife’s testimony and the documents produced by her. 20. On 12 August 2011 the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings (see below). 21. Following the first-instance judgment of the constitutional jurisdiction (see below), by a decision of 14 March 2012 the Court of Magistrates ‒ after hearing further submissions ‒ reduced the bail deposit to EUR 7,000 and increased the personal guarantee to EUR 60,000. It drew the applicant’s attention to the other bail conditions previously imposed which were still in effect. 22. Following a further request submitted on 23 April 2012, the Court of Magistrates on the same day allowed his request for modification of the bail conditions, reducing the deposit to EUR 5,000 and increasing the personal guarantee to EUR 70,000. There were other changes to some of the original conditions (such as having to report only once a day to the police station). The applicant deposited the sum of EUR 5,000 and was released on the same day. 23. In the meantime, on 12 August 2011 the applicant instituted a new set of constitutional redress proceedings, complaining, inter alia, of a breach of Article 5 § 3 in the light of the high guarantees set by the Court of Magistrates, as a result of which it had not ‒ in practice ‒ been possible for him to be released on bail. The applicant’s wife gave evidence on 20 September 2011. She stated that the shop had closed down as she could not run it due to childcare and health problems, and she explained that she had sold the stock at rock-bottom prices. She described her health problems, substantiating them by means of medical reports. She further testified that the bank had foreclosed due to failure to pay the mortgage on the house, resulting in them losing their family home with all the money from the sale going to the bank. The wife stated that the family was living on state benefits, that they had no savings, that their household effects and their car had been sold, and that she had been sending money to her husband to buy necessities and was renting a flat in Malta as a bail address for the applicant. 24. By a judgment of 16 January 2012 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence rejected the applicant’s complaint under the aforementioned provision. It observed that the Court of Magistrates had based its decision on information supplied by the applicant and as of the date of its last decree the financial and personal details available to the court had been insufficient to permit any assessment of the reasonableness of the conditions imposed. Only at a later date did more information become available, demonstrating that the applicant was to blame “when he himself brought no clear evidence of his financial and presence [recte: present] situation until late 2011.” In the light of this, the court held that the applicant’s claim was not justified. However, since by this time the applicant’s personal and financial situation was clearer, though the information was not exhaustive, the court invited the Court of Magistrates to re-evaluate the conditions imposed following the application filed by the applicant. 25. The applicant appealed, arguing that various items of documentation including bank statements had been presented to the court; moreover, factual mistakes had been made, such as the misconception that his business had been sold and not closed down. 26. By a judgment of 12 November 2012 the applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Constitutional Court. It observed that evidence before the Court of Magistrates had been scanty, with the exception of documents showing that the couple owned a house worth GBP 700,000 (approx. EUR 807,000) ‒ subject to a mortgage of GBP 381,000 ‒ as well as a shoe business. However, on presentation of further evidence the level of financial guarantees was lowered, the relevant court having realised that, despite the passage of time, the applicant remained unable to pay and the grounds for pre-trial detention were becoming less relevant. 27. The applicant lodged a request for retrial, which was rejected by a judgment of 28 April 2014. 28. Following his actual release on bail, the applicant made various requests for alteration of the conditions imposed, in particular permission to return to the United Kingdom for specific events or short intervals between court hearings to see his family. One such request was granted upon condition of presentation of the air ticket and deposit of a EUR 20,000 guarantee. It would appear that this condition could not be fulfilled. Subsequent requests were denied in view of the applicant’s inability to give any financial guarantees and considering that the applicant’s family could join him in Malta. 29. As mentioned above, on 10 September 2009 the applicant was arraigned in court (the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry), where he pleaded not guilty to the charges. The following is a list of hearings which took place subsequently, as is apparent from the documents submitted: 30. On 14 September 2009 the prosecuting officer and eight other police officers gave evidence, and documents were produced. On 22 September 2009 further documents were produced, and a pharmacist, another police officer and a third person gave evidence. An expert in communications technology and a translator were appointed. The former was instructed to obtain all phone data relating to the applicant between 20 August and 10 September 2009. 31. On 3 November 2009 a copy of the inquiry was produced and one person gave evidence and produced documents. On 13 November 2009 another two police officers and a lawyer gave evidence and produced documents. A fingerprints expert was appointed. Another hearing was held on 11 December 2009. On 16 December 2009 the communications technology expert and two other individuals gave evidence. On 21 January 2010 the fingerprints expert gave evidence. On 2 February 2010, three witnesses who had already been heard gave further evidence, together with another two individuals. On 11 February 2010 another witness gave evidence and on 12 February 2010 a decree was issued by the court. 32. On 23 March 2010 the case was adjourned as the magistrate was indisposed. On 25 March 2010 a doctor and the prosecuting officer gave evidence; the latter declared that only three witnesses remained to be heard. 33. On 4 May 2010 the case was adjourned as the magistrate was indisposed. On 5 May 2010 a police inspector and another person gave evidence and were cross-examined. The co-accused’s lawyer complained that the proceedings were protracted. On 11 May 2010 the case was adjourned due to technical problems. On 22 June 2010 two witnesses who had already given evidence were further heard and cross-examined. The applicant’s lawyer reserved the right to further cross-examination, and requested that a witness be re-heard. 34. On 2 July 2010 the communications technology expert was cross-examined, and it transpired that he had not asked the foreign phone providers for the records of the calls in the relevant period (see above). Another witness failed to appear, and the applicant’s lawyer requested that another witness be re-heard. On 6 July 2010 the applicant made a request for telephonic data from the United Kingdom (relating to his co-accused). On 14 July 2010 the Attorney General replied that the correct procedure to obtain such data would be by means of letters of request. On 19 July 2010 the Court of Magistrates ordered the applicant to abide by this procedure. 35. On 4 August the hearing was adjourned. On 16 August 2010 the applicant requested the acquisition of text messages from two mobile phones in the period August to September 2009. On 17 August 2010 the Attorney General reiterated the procedure that should be used. On 19 August 2010 the applicant reiterated his request and the parties made oral submissions. On 20 August 2010 the Attorney General filed a note attaching samples of letters of request to aid the applicant making his request. On the same day and again on 7 September 2010 the applicant contested this procedure. On 15 September 2010 the applicant informed the court of his new legal representatives; the Attorney General gave evidence. On 27 September 2010 the applicant filed a request for letters rogatory to be sent to the United Kingdom. On 30 September 2010 it was noted that the aforementioned request was defective – the court reserved its decision as to whether to suspend the terms applicable to the compilation of evidence. 36. On 1 October 2010 the applicant submitted a correct request for the telephonic data (August – September 2009). On 12 October 2012 the prosecution agreed to forward the letters in question to the relevant authorities – the court suspended the terms applicable to the compilation of evidence. On 29 October 2010 further evidence was submitted and cross-examinations were carried out. Other hearings were held on 10 and 17 November 2010. On 26 November 2010 the hearing was adjourned as one of the inspectors was indisposed. 37. On 3 December 2010 the court noted that the letters rogatory had still not been forwarded to the United Kingdom and urged the Attorney General to inform the court about the progress of the letters. On 6 December 2010 the Attorney General stated that data had been missing in the documentation provided by the applicant. On 10 December 2010 it was noted that the data in question was still missing. On 20 December 2010 the hearing was adjourned because the presiding magistrate was indisposed. On 21 December 2010 the Attorney General returned the letters rogatory filed by the applicant to the court as they had not included all the relevant data, in particular the extract of the law relating to the charges levied against the applicant was missing. The court was informed by its staff that this document had not been submitted by the Attorney General. To avoid further loss of time, the applicant volunteered to re-submit the letters rogatory together with a printout of the relevant law bearing the visto of a representative of the Attorney General and the court granted the request. According to the Government, on 29 December 2010 it became apparent that the letters of request could not be processed by the United Kingdom central authority. 38. A further hearing took place on 18 January 2011, at which it was ordered that an update from the United Kingdom authorities be forwarded to the parties. On 1 February 2011 the applicant was asked whether he wished to add or alter anything to the letters rogatory and on 11 February 2011 he was ordered to file a note with all the information necessary for the execution of the letters of request. On 18 February 2011, following an unfavourable reply from the United Kingdom Central Authority, the applicant asked the Attorney General to ascertain whether or not the telephone service provider was still in possession of the data requested in the letters rogatory. On 22 February 2011 evidence from two witnesses was heard. 39. On 3 March 2011 the applicant filed fresh letters of request, which were sent to the United Kingdom on 17 March 2011. On 9 March 2011 the case was put off as the magistrate was indisposed. On 16 March 2011 an inspector gave evidence and the Attorney General was asked to give an update about the letters rogatory, which was done the following day. On 29 March 2011, the case was postponed for an unspecified reason. 40. On 7 April 2011 one witness was heard and on 19 April 2011 another witness produced a document as evidence. On 27 April 2011 the case was adjourned. On 3 May 2011 the court stated that it would decide pending applications in camera. Another witness was heard on 13 May 2011. On 20 May 2011 the court was still waiting for the letters rogatory, so the case was adjourned. On 2 June 2011 the United Kingdom Central Authority replied, and ‒ following orders by the court of 3 and 15 June on 16 June 2011 ‒ a note was filed in court by the Attorney General, which was read out in open court on 24 June 2011. 41. At the hearings on 6, 19 and 29 July 2011 the court declared that it had no news regarding the letters rogatory from the United Kingdom. On 31 August and 13 September the court urged the Attorney General to submit the information obtained concerning the letters rogatory. On 27 September 2011 a further reply from the United Kingdom central authorities was received, but a hearing of the same day was adjourned due to a bomb threat at the law courts. On 13 October 2011 the court received the response to the letters rogatory, stating that the data requested had been irretrievably lost. It re-activated the terms applicable to the compilation of evidence. 42. On 2 November 2011 a police officer was cross-examined. On 22 November 2011 the case was adjourned to enable the defence lawyers to communicate with the accused. The case file was forwarded to the Attorney General. Apparently another two hearings took place on 21 December and 27 January, when the case was adjourned on the first occasion because the co-accused was not present, and on the second for an unspecified reason. On 2 February 2012 the case was adjourned for no apparent reason and on 3 February 2012 the case was again adjourned to enable the defence lawyers to communicate with the accused. The case file was forwarded to the Attorney General. 43. On 13 March 2012 the case was again postponed until the next day for no apparent reason. On 14 March 2012, following a request by the Attorney General to restart the proceedings (Article 432 of the Laws of Malta), the charge was read out and, sworn under oath, the applicant refused to answer the questions put to him in the examination. His co-accused was questioned. The parties declared they were relying on all the evidence already produced and a prima facie decree was handed down. Thus, proceedings were then restarted and hearings were held on 19, 20, and 23 April 2012. On 5 May 2012 the case was adjourned and on 6 July 2012 the applicant requested that a witness be summoned. However, on 17 July the case was again adjourned because the witness in question was in hospital. 44. On 28 August 2012 the applicant complained that the Attorney General had done nothing to preserve the telephone recordings which were crucial to the defence. Further evidence was heard at the hearings of 11 September 2012, 18 October and 19 December 2012, 29 January, 5 February, 14 March (when new letters rogatory were also presented), and 20 March 2013. On 30 April and 16 May 2013 the case was adjourned for an unspecified reason. On 3 May 2013 the applicant reiterated that he would like to proceed with a number of cross-examinations. The prosecution objected to the request to have the same witnesses heard again. 45. On 26 June 2013 the applicant requested an adjournment as his lawyer was not available. A hearing took place on 25 July 2013. Further evidence was heard on 6 August 2013. On 17 September 2013 the applicant requested an adjournment. On 24 September 2013 further oral submissions were made and evidence heard, the prosecution stated that the letters rogatory did not comply with the legal requirements. The court suspended the terms applicable to the compilation of evidence. 46. On 3 October 2013 the case was adjourned for oral submissions. The case was adjourned again on 15 and 25 October 2013 for oral submissions, inter alia, by the Attorney General concerning an application for contempt of court in his regard. 47. Replies to the letters rogatory having been received, the court re-activated the terms applicable to the compilation of evidence on 5 November 2013. It adjourned the case once again for oral submissions. Further evidence was heard on 12 November 2013. Oral submissions were made on 28 November 2013. 48. On 15 January 2014 the expert gave evidence and the case was adjourned to 4 February and eventually to 26 February 2014 at the applicant’s request. On 11 March 2014 the applicant stated he intended to file fresh letters of request. Letters rogatory, were exhibited in court on 22 April 2014.

{'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 1977 and lives in the village of Budy, Kharkiv Region. 6. On 4 May 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of stealing cucumbers from a greenhouse on a vegetable farm. On the same day the applicant was also arrested for an administrative offence (disobeying and resisting police officers). The report concerning the applicant’s arrest for the administrative offence indicated that the applicant had no bodily injuries. 7. According to the Government, the applicant was released on 4 May 2003. 8. According to the applicant, on that day police officers beat him up in the Chervonozavodskyy District Police Department of Kharkiv (“the Police Department”), forcing him to confess to the theft. The applicant made self-incriminating statements. He was released on 5 May 2003 after the court had imposed a fine on him for the administrative offence. 9. On 5 May 2003 the investigator of the Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and another person (P.) in connection with the theft of the cucumbers. As a preventive measure the applicant signed a written undertaking not to abscond. 10. On 5 May 2003 the applicant sought medical treatment at a hospital. A doctor at the trauma unit of the hospital noted that the applicant had numerous bruises on his body, and diagnosed him with concussion and a possible fracture of the nose. 11. On 8 May 2003 the applicant was examined by a surgeon, who noted that he had bruises on his nose, on the right side of the waist and on the suprapubic area. 12. On 12 May 2003 the applicant was admitted to the hospital for inpatient treatment on account of the injuries he had sustained. 13. On 20 May 2003, in the course of questioning, P., another suspect in the criminal case, complained of ill-treatment to the police investigator and noted that on 4 May 2003 he had also been in the Police Department and had heard noises and the applicant shouting. 14. On 13 June 2003 the applicant was discharged from the hospital. 15. On 25 June 2003 the applicant denied any involvement in the theft and argued that his earlier self-incriminating statements had been made as a result of ill-treatment on the part of police officers. 16. On 26 June 2003 a medical expert completed the medical examination (which started on 8 May 2003) and issued a report stating that the applicant was recovering from concussion accompanied by asthenic syndrome, he had bruises on the right leg and the trunk, swollen fingers on the left and right hands, and a swollen nose. The expert opined that the injuries had been inflicted by blunt solid objects and could have been sustained on 4 May 2003. The expert also cited the applicant’s statement that the injuries had been caused on 4 May 2003 by unknown persons in the street. 17. On 27 June 2003, in the course of questioning, P. once again stated that on 4 May 2003 he had also been in the Police Department and had heard noises and the applicant shouting. 18. On 8 July 2003 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist and diagnosed with postcontusional syndrome accompanied by occasional anxious depression. 19. On 10 July 2003 the applicant applied to the Chervonozavodskyy District Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) seeking criminal prosecution of police officers for ill-treatment. 20. On 19 July 2003 the prosecutor, having conducted a pre-investigation enquires, refused to open criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, for lack of corpus delicti. 21. On 31 July 2003 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist, who considered that the concussion had had a negative psychological effect on him and that he was showing signs of psychoorganic anxious depression syndrome with amnestic disorder. 22. On 12 August 2003 the medical expert issued another report, noting that the applicant had sustained concussion which had caused psychoorganic anxious depression syndrome accompanied by amnestic disorder; that he had bruises on his right arm and trunk, and swellings of the right and left hands and face; the injuries were of medium severity and had been caused by blunt solid objects. The expert considered that the injuries could have been sustained on 4 May 2003. The expert again cited the applicant’s statement that the injuries had been caused on 4 May 2003 by unknown persons in the street. 23. On 7 October 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 19 July 2003 as unfounded and ordered further pre-investigation enquiries. 24. On 17 October 2003 the District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings on account of the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant. 25. On 31 March 2004 a medical expert issued an additional report which stated that the applicant’s craniocerebral injury accompanied by psychoorganic effects should be classified as an injury of medium severity; the other injuries (bruises and swellings) should be classified as minor injuries. It was noted in the report that the applicant stated that he had been beaten up by police officers on 4 May 2003. The expert opined that his injuries had been caused by blunt solid objects and could have been sustained on 4 May 2003 in the circumstances described by the applicant. The expert did not however exclude the possibility that those injuries had been caused by the applicant’s falling down. 26. On 7 April 2004 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant’s father that the criminal case concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment had not been comprehensively investigated and that the investigator in charge had been given instructions as to what further steps must be taken. 27. On 8 June 2004 a doctor diagnosed the applicant with anxious depression syndrome. 28. On 17 November 2004 the investigation in that case was suspended as the perpetrators of the crime against the applicant could not be identified. 29. On 30 March 2005 the investigation was resumed. 30. On 11 April 2005 the investigation was suspended again because the perpetrators of the crime against the applicant could not be identified. 31. On 1 August 2005 the criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning the theft of the cucumbers were terminated for lack of corpus delicti. 32. On 27 January 2006 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the decision of 11 April 2005 had been quashed as unfounded and that instructions had been given for a proper investigation of the alleged ill-treatment. 33. On 13 March 2006 the investigator of the District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against specific officers of the Police Department in connection with the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. The investigator noted that the police officers denied the applicant’s allegations and the applicant himself had not claimed at the beginning that he had been ill-treated; the available evidence did not suggest that the injuries had been caused to the applicant by police officers. 34. On 14 March 2006 the District Prosecutor’s Office decided to refer the case to the investigation unit of the Police Department for further proceedings. 35. On 20 August 2008 the investigation was suspended as the perpetrators of the crime against the applicant could not be identified. 36. On 31 October 2008 the supervising prosecutor’s office quashed that decision as unfounded and gave instructions for a further investigation. By letter of the same date the prosecutor informed the applicant of the decision taken. In that letter the prosecutor also informed the applicant about the earlier decision of 13 March 2006, by which the investigator had refused to institute criminal proceedings against specific police officers. 37. On 3 August 2009 the local prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against the investigators for inadequate investigation of the case concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment. 38. On 20 September 2012 the investigation was pending.

{'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. Mr Ionel Garcea was born in 1973 and died on 19 July 2007 in Rahova prison hospital. He had no known relatives. 5. At the material time, Mr Garcea was serving a seven-year sentence for a rape which he had consistently denied having committed. On the date of the criminal conviction, the courts found that he had full legal capacity (discernământ) and was thus capable of taking decisions and acting freely upon them. 6. Mr Garcea was held in Jilava and Rahova prisons and prison hospitals. He was diagnosed with epilepsy, personality disorder (impulsive and explosive), polymorphic psychosis and phlebitis of both legs. During his detention he had numerous conflicts with the prison warders, the police and the prosecutor. On several occasions he was reprimanded for “insulting authority” (înjurii aduse cadrelor) and for self-harm (inserting nails into his forehead). 7. In 2002, when he started serving his sentence, Mr Garcea contacted APADOR‑CH from the police headquarters to inform them of his arrest. He also wrote to the association from prison. The association had paid for his legal assistance in a civil suit for damages brought against the State in connection with his detention in a previous case and in previous criminal proceedings, and had occasionally given him material support, such as medicine, paper, pens and prepaid telephone cards. 8. According to the official prison records, Mr Garcea received regular check-ups for his mental illness. He was admitted on ten occasions to the psychiatric ward of the prison hospitals for a few days each time. While in hospital he was prescribed medical treatment for his condition, which he often refused to take. On a few occasions he also refused medical examinations and often insisted on being discharged from hospital. On other occasions he signed the hospital consent form for treatment and at times he complained that he had not received medical treatment while in hospital. 9. On 4 August 2004 Mr Garcea inserted a nail in his forehead. On 9 August he was taken to the psychiatric ward of Jilava prison hospital and then to a civilian hospital. Mr Garcea agreed to have the metal object removed from his head, but later that day changed his mind. His two statements were recorded by the hospital personnel in his medical file. The nail was ultimately removed and on 13 August 2004 he was discharged from the civilian hospital and sent back to the psychiatric ward of Jilava prison hospital. 10. At the beginning of 2005 Mr Garcea attempted suicide by overdose and as a result fell into a fourth-degree coma. It is mentioned in his medical record that in the psychiatric ward he refused any medical examinations following his suicide attempt and requested to be discharged. 11. In May 2005, after a week’s stay in Rahova prison hospital where, according to the medical record, he did not receive any treatment for his phlebitis, Mr Garcea was transferred to Rahova Prison. 12. In June 2005 Mr Garcea was operated on in a civilian hospital in order to have metal fragments removed from his head (pieces of nails which he had inserted into his forehead). After the operation, the doctors performed a brain scan on Mr Garcea, only to discover that some pieces of metal had been left inside his head. Mr Garcea underwent another operation one month later. 13. According to his prison medical record, Mr Garcea was monitored by a psychologist in order to help reduce the risk of aggressive behaviour towards himself and others. 14. Mr Garcea alleged that in August 2004 he had been beaten up by the prison intervention force and then handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed for two weeks. 15. On 17 December 2004, in reply to an inquiry made by APADOR‑CH into those incidents, the prison administration explained that there was no evidence of a breach of prison rules and that Mr Garcea’s immobilisation had been made necessary by his violent behaviour and had been approved by the prison governor. The official prison records from Jilava prison hospital mention three occasions on which Mr Garcea had been tied to his bed: on 19 and 25 August 2004 and again on 4 September 2004. b) 26 July 2005 16. In August 2005, members of the APADOR-CH paid Mr Garcea another visit. He complained to them that he had been beaten up on several occasions by the warders. In particular, he stated that on 26 July 2005, at the end of a court hearing, the prison guards had pushed and slapped him in order to make him move faster. He had protested. When they had returned to the prison, the warders had tried to push him into a separate room in order to beat him up. He objected, broke a window and kept a piece of the broken glass in his hand with the intention of killing himself. The warders interpreted his gesture as an attack and called the prison intervention forces, who chained him to a bed and beat him until he lost consciousness. He was then transported to Jilava hospital. 17. The APADOR-CH complained to the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice about that incident, but received no answer. 18. The Government submitted an account of the above-mentioned incidents provided by the prison administration, who denied using any physical force against Mr Garcea. According to the prison administration, Mr Garcea refused to allow the prison guards to guide him to a room in order to be searched and instead became abusive, broke the glass in the door of that room and started moving towards the prison guards wielding a shard of broken glass. A member of the prison staff who escorted detainees from the court house dissuaded Mr Garcea from using the broken glass. According to the prison records, the prison staff handcuffed him because they were aware of his mental illness and of his past attempts to commit suicide. As he continued to be verbally aggressive, the guards attached his arms and legs to a bed and requested medical assistance. 19. Following their visit of August 2005, members of APADOR-CH complained to the prison administration about the conditions of detention in which Mr Garcea was being held, which they considered inappropriate for his situation. They also urged the prison administration to provide him with medical treatment for his various conditions; they pointed out that his mental health was visibly deteriorating and that despite his repeated visits to hospitals, he had not received adequate and prompt medical treatment. The hospitals’ willingness to provide medicines for him had been counteracted by the delays with which the doctors had issued the necessary prescriptions. They contended that, in their view, the lack of medical treatment for epilepsy and phlebitis amounted to torture. They also urged the prison authorities to stop provoking violent reactions from Mr Garcea through their attitude towards him and to stop using force against him. Lastly, the members of APADOR-CH asked the prosecutor’s office to deal more expeditiously with Mr Garcea’s complaint of ill‑treatment. 20. In June 2007, while he was being held in Jilava hospital, Mr Garcea inserted another nail into his forehead. On 7 June 2007 he was operated on in a civilian hospital. He was then sent to the Rahova prison hospital with a diagnosis of sepsis, post-extraction symptoms and acute bronchopneumonia. 21. From 16 to 26 June 2007 Mr Garcea’s condition continued to deteriorate. The Rahova prison authorities decided to send him back to the civilian hospital for examination and possibly another operation. On 4 July 2007 he was returned from the civilian hospital to Rahova prison hospital, on the basis that his general condition had improved. The medical records of the same date from Rahova prison hospital indicated that the patient’s general condition was serious. He remained in the prison hospital until his death on 19 July 2007. According to the official prison records, he was administered the prescribed antiseptic treatment in the prison hospital. On 20 July 2007 an autopsy was carried out and the observations were recorded in an autopsy report. 22. On 27 July 2007 the APADOR-CH asked the prison administration to investigate the medical treatment given to Mr Garcea and the cause of his death. It raised several queries, in particular how Mr Garcea could have contracted bronchopneumonia when he had been held only in hospitals for the past few years. It also asked whether the medical treatment had been adequate, given the lack of reaction by the medical personnel to the continuous deterioration of Mr Garcea’s condition in June and July 2007. The applicant association contended that although under the provisions of Joint Order No. 995/2007 issued by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health on 6 June 2007 (which replaced a similar order of 2003), a joint committee had to be set up to inquire into the causes of deaths in detention, no such steps had been taken in Mr Garcea’s case. 23. The APADOR-CH asked to be informed about the progress of the investigations, adding that the deceased had no relatives. 24. On 1 August 2007 APADOR-CH drafted a report into Mr Garcea’s death and sent it to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court in order to help the investigation. 25. In the meantime, on 19 July 2007 the prosecutor had ordered a forensic examination of the cause of Mr Garcea’s death. The medical report concluded that the death had been caused by “multiple organ failure, as a consequence of a cerebral abscess developed because of the repeated introduction of a metal object, necessitating neurosurgery and lengthy stays in hospital”. The report also concluded that there was not enough evidence to suggest that there had been inadequate medical assistance in the case. 26. On 12 October 2007 the file was sent to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal, which, on 23 February 2009, decided not to prosecute the prison doctors for improper conduct and endangering a person incapable of taking care of himself. They sent the file back to the prosecutor attached to the County Court in so far as the complaint concerned allegations of ill-treatment in detention. 27. The prosecutor’s decision was communicated to the APADOR-CH on 3 March 2009. 28. The association objected to the decision, but on 9 April 2009 the Prosecutor General from the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. He considered that the association lacked locus standi to make the objection; he then re-examined the evidence of his own motion and concluded that the prosecutor’s decision was correct. 29. The APADOR-CH lodged a complaint with the Bucharest Court of Appeal against the decision of the Prosecutor General of 9 April 2009, seeking to have the file sent back and to have an indictment filed by the prosecutor. It argued that Mr Garcea had not received adequate medical treatment in prison and that his death had been caused by medical negligence in the prison hospitals. It also argued that the investigation had not been exhaustive, as the prosecutor had done no more than provide details of the medical treatment that Mr Garcea had received, without examining whether there had been medical negligence in his case. The APADOR-CH also complained that the prosecutor had not examined the allegations of ill‑treatment. 30. The Court of Appeal gave its ruling on 22 July 2009. It decided that the APADOR-CH had locus standi, as the High Court of Cassation and Justice had decided, in 2006, that non-governmental organisations acting in the field of human rights had the capacity to object to steps taken by the prosecutor. On the merits, the court found that the prosecutor’s decision was correct, and was supported by the evidence in the file. It therefore dismissed the objection. 31. The APADOR-CH appealed. It reiterated that Mr Garcea had not received adequate medical treatment and care, which had led to his death, and that there had been no investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. It pointed out that the prosecutor had failed to request an expert examination of the body. 32. In a final decision of 21 October 2009 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the appeal. It reiterated that the APADOR-CH had locus standi to pursue the complaint, but found that on the merits, the prosecutor’s decisions were correct as there were no indications in the file that the prison doctors had failed to assist Mr Garcea or to provide him with adequate medical treatment. 33. As for the allegations of ill-treatment, on 23 March 2010 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court decided not to pursue the investigation on the ground that there was no conclusive evidence to suggest improper medical care. The decision was quashed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal which, on 10 February 2011 sent the case back to the prosecutor, as it considered that the investigation had not been thorough and relevant evidence had not been administered. The court ordered that the investigation be pursued in order to establish: – the conditions that had precipitated Mr Garcea’s death; – whether there was a causal link between his introducing metal objects into his skull and his death; – whether the hospital procedures had been respected concerning the investigations and treatment for his various illnesses; – the conditions in 2007 which had allowed the self-harm to occur; and – whether the internal rules of the Jilava prison hospital had been respected. The investigation is currently ongoing.

{'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 Săvârșin. 6. She was adopted on 25 February 1972, at the age of seventeen. 7. The applicant’s adoptive mother also had another adopted daughter, H.M. The applicant’s mother died in 1986. 8. In 2003, the two sisters were jointly granted title to ten hectares of forest, based on their entitlement through adoption to inherit land which had been expropriated from their grandmother. 9. Subsequently, the applicant brought an action for division of the land between the sisters. 10. While the proceedings were ongoing, H.M. brought an action for annulment of the applicant’s adoption. She claimed that the main aim pursued by her adoptive mother when she had sought to adopt the applicant had been to ensure emotional and financial support for her in old age and help with everyday activities. H.M. averred that the only aim pursued by the applicant in agreeing to the adoption had been to obtain inheritance rights. 11. The applicant submitted that the main reason why her sister had lodged the action for the annulment of her adoption had been to preclude her from inheriting half of the ten hectares of land and to keep all the property inherited from their adoptive mother for herself. In this respect she claimed that the lawfulness of the adoption order had never been questioned before, although it had been issued thirty-two years previously. She concluded that the misunderstandings which had arisen between her and her sister after the death of their adoptive mother could not justify the annulment of an adoption concluded in accordance with the law. 12. In his final oral submissions before the first-instance court the applicant’s lawyer raised the objection of lack of locus standi of the plaintiff. He contended that H.M. had not proved a legitimate and current interest in seeking the annulment of her sister’s adoption. 13. On 7 December 2004 the Suceava County Court dismissed the applicant’s objection and declared the applicant’s adoption void, finding that it had not had a purpose envisioned by the Family Code. It held that the only aim of the applicant’s adoption had been the fulfilment of the patrimonial interests of the adoptive mother and the adopted child, and that it had not been intended to ensure a better life for the applicant. 14. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, maintaining that she had lived with her adoptive mother since she was nine years old, although the adoption order had only been issued in 1972 when she was seventeen. She submitted that the family relationship established between her and her adoptive mother since she was nine had been proved by witness statements which were in the case file, and that it was also attested to in the report drafted by the authorities when they carried out a social investigation in connection with her adoption. 15. The judgment of the court of first instance was upheld by a decision of the Suceava Court of Appeal rendered on 15 April 2005. A dissenting opinion to that decision stated that the adoption had not been improper, as its main aim had been the welfare of the applicant, who had been born into a family with eight children and a difficult financial situation.

{'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 1951 and 1973 respectively and live in Hakkari. The first applicant is the father of the second applicant. 6. İ.D., a non-commissioned officer, telephoned the second applicant and asked him to tell his father, the first applicant, to go to the Çukurca Gendarmerie Station. At around 5 p.m. on 17 July 2007 the first applicant, accompanied by the second applicant, went to the gendarmerie station. On their arrival the second applicant waited at the entrance to the station and the first applicant was taken into Major M.C.’s office, where he was subjected to ill-treatment by M.C. and İ.D. who was also an officer at the same station. The two officers accused the first applicant of providing support to the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation), and of making propaganda for a political party, the DTP (Democratic Society Party). Using box tape, officers M.C. and İ.D. attached a hand grenade to the first applicant’s face. An object was forcefully put into his nose and mouth, and he was threatened that his eyes would be gouged out. He was also repeatedly hit with an object on the left side of his face and on his chest. The ill-treatment and accusations continued for approximately one hour with accompanying threats to kill him and his family members. 7. After his release the first applicant and his son returned to their home in their village and later the same day the first applicant went to a hospital in the nearby town of Çukurca where he was examined and a report was drawn up setting out his injuries. 8. On 17 July 2007 the first applicant went to the Çukurca Gendarmerie Station following the request of Major M.C. He was not, however, subjected to ill-treatment. 9. On 18 July 2007 the first applicant filed a criminal complaint with the local prosecutor, alleging that he had been beaten and threatened at the Çukurca Gendarmerie Station. 10. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against the officers İ.D. and M.C. and those proceedings are still pending. 11. The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties. 12. According to a medical report issued at Çukurca Hospital at 7.30 p.m. on 17 July 2007, there was an ecchymosed swelling and two blood-clotted small lacerations on the left side of the first applicant’s face. The report also mentioned a restriction in the movement of his arms and chest pain. After his examination at the hospital the first applicant was transferred to the Hakkari State Hospital where he was examined once more and subsequently discharged. 13. On 18 July 2007 the first applicant made a formal complaint to the Hakkari prosecutor’s office against the military officers İ.D. and M.C. for having subjected him to ill-treatment, insults and intimidation. On the same day his statement was taken by the prosecutor. 14. Subsequently the applicant was referred to the Forensic Medicine Institute’s Hakkari branch for a medical examination. On 27 July 2007 the Institute reported that the applicant had ecchymosed swelling on his left cheekbone and restriction and pain on the movement of his left arm and shoulder. 15. On 27 July 2007 the Hakkari prosecutor decided that he did not have jurisdiction ratione loci to examine the complaint and referred the file to the Çukurca prosecutor. 16. On 1 August 2007 the Çukurca prosecutor decided that he also did not have the requisite jurisdiction, and referred the case file to the prosecutor’s officer at the Van Military Criminal Court. 17. On 1 November 2007 the Van military prosecutor and a military officer took statements from İ.D. and witness statements from a number of other military officers who worked at the same military station. In his statement İ.D. denied the charges against him. He also mentioned that the first applicant had been invited to the gendarmerie station to be warned not to threaten individuals in order to influence their votes in the forthcoming elections. All officers who testified as witnesses stated that they had not seen the alleged ill-treatment or any physical signs of it on the applicants. One of the officers, T.P., also testified that M.C. had ordered him to leave his door slightly ajar during the meeting because he had thought that the first applicant might subsequently make false accusations against him. 18. On 5 September 2008 the Van military prosecutor decided not to open an investigation into the first applicant’s allegations. On 23 September 2008 the first applicant lodged an objection against that decision. 19. On 10 December 2008 a statement was taken from M.C. by the military prosecutor. M.C. stated that he had invited the first applicant to the gendarmerie station and talked to him for about thirty minutes; he had not subjected him to any ill-treatment. 20. Having examined the first applicant’s objection, the Ağrı Military Court decided on 14 August 2009 that the witness statements of the military officers revealing the facts of the incident contained fundamental inconsistencies which cast doubt on their reliability. It therefore quashed the Van military prosecutor’s decision and ordered that criminal proceedings be brought against the two military officers. 21. In accordance with that decision, on 31 August 2009 criminal proceedings were instigated before the Van Military Court against İ.D. and M.C. for the offence of wilful injury and intimidation by an agent of the State, contrary to sections 86 and 106 of the Criminal Code. 22. On 11 February 2010 the second applicant was heard as a witness before the Van Military Court, and stated the following: “(...) on the day of the incident we received a telephone call at our house. The caller asked me and my father to go to the military quarters before the evening. Then I found my father and at around 5 p.m. we went to the military quarters (...) there was a checkpoint on the road, we passed the checkpoint and after approximately 100 metres we arrived at the main entrance (...) I stayed at the main entrance, they took my father in, he walked to the military quarters which was 50-60 metres ahead. Approximately an hour later they brought my father back, he was not able to walk [unaided]. I held him by his arms and took him to the checkpoint where I phoned F.D. [who works as] a village guard [in our village]. He came to the checkpoint with his car [and] we took my father to the village in [his] car. (...) My father’s state [of health] was not good (...) so we put him in the car owned by K.D., [who is] the headman [of our village]. We passed through the road checkpoint again and went to the Çukurca Hospital. (...) When we were leaving, my father’s face was covered with blood; he was not able to walk without support. By the time we got to the checkpoint I had cleaned his face.” 23. Taking the second applicant’s statement into account, the court summoned and heard the village guard F.D. and headman K.D. as witnesses. F.D. stated the following: “(...) The [applicants] were near the civilian parking area outside the entrance [of the gendarmerie station]. When I saw them, I went closer to them. There was blood on the face and mouth of Süleyman Demir. His shirt was covered with blood, and also there were bruises and swelling on his eyes, lips and face; he looked like he had been beaten up.” K.D. stated the following: “(...) When I went to their house Süleyman Demir told me that he had been beaten up by the Köprülü brigade commander Major M. and that he had been feeling sick. (...) However, I did not see any signs of battery and his clothes were normal.” 24. On 26 August 2010 a medical expert from the Van State Hospital was summoned before the Van Military Court in order to determine whether the first applicant’s injuries could have been caused as a result of ill‑treatment. Having examined the medical reports, the expert stated that it was not possible to establish the cause of the injuries. 25. On 4 November 2010 the Van Military Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction ratione materiae to try the case, and forwarded the case file to the Çukurca Criminal Court of First Instance. 26. On 20 April 2011 the Military Supreme Court approved the decision of lack of jurisdiction. 27. On 16 June 2011 a criminal case was lodged before the Çukurca Criminal Court of First Instance against İ.D. and M.C. for simple injury and intimidation. 28. On 21 November 2012 the Çukurca Criminal Court of First Instance decided that it did not have jurisdiction to try the case either and forwarded the case file to the Çukurca Magistrates’ Court’s Criminal Division. According to the information provided by the parties, the proceedings are still pending before Çukurca Magistrates’ Court Criminal Division.

{'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 facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. The applicant, Mr Manuel Rogelio Gallardo Sanchez, is a Venezuelan national who was born in 1965 and lives in Cape Town (South Africa). 8. On 19 April 2005 the applicant, who had been accused of arson by the Greek authorities, was taken into custody pending extradition by the Rome police on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the Athens Court of Appeal on 26 January 2005 under the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957. 9. On 22 April 2005 the L’Aquila Court of Appeal validated the applicant’s arrest and ordered his detention. 10. On 26 April 2005 the Ministry of Justice asked the Court of Appeal to extend his detention. 11. At the hearing of 27 April 2005, the President of the Court of Appeal, ruling under Article 717 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 25 below), established the applicant’s identity and asked if he gave his consent to his extradition. He did not consent. 12. On 9 June 2005 the Ministry of Justice informed the Court of Appeal that, on 25 May 2005, the Greek authorities had sent a request for extradition together with all the requisite supporting documents. 13. On 21 June 2005 the public prosecutor’s office asked the Court of Appeal to grant the extradition request. 14. The hearing was scheduled for 15 December 2005. At the request of the applicant’s representative, it was postponed until 12 January 2006. 15. Without any prior investigation the Court of Appeal approved the extradition by a decision of 12 January 2006, deposited on 30 January 2006. It verified the conformity of the extradition request with the European Convention on Extradition and its compliance with the ne bis in idem and double-criminality principles, and it ruled out the possibility that the proceedings had been brought for any discriminatory or political reasons. 16. On 3 March 2006 the applicant appealed on points of law, arguing in particular that the request for his extradition had been sent by the Greek authorities after the forty-day time-limit provided for in Article 16 § 4 of the European Convention on Extradition, which meant in his view that his detention had been unlawful. He further argued that the charges laid against him by the Greek authorities were not based on serious indications of guilt. He submitted that he should therefore be released. 17. In a judgment of 11 May 2006, deposited with the registry on 18 September 2006, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal with only one page of reasoning, in particular because it found that the extradition request had been received within the time-limit provided for in the European Convention on Extradition and that it did not have jurisdiction to examine whether serious indications of guilt had been adduced. 18. In the meantime, on three occasions between June and September 2005, the applicant had applied to the Rome Court of Appeal, unsuccessfully, requesting his release. In its last decision of 27 October 2005, adopted in private in compliance with the adversarial principle, and without any prior investigation, the Court of Appeal found that there was no reason to depart from its two previous decisions, having regard to the ongoing risk that the applicant might abscond, even though the authorities had taken away his passport, and to the State’s obligation to comply with its international commitments. 19. On 9 October 2006 the Minister of Justice signed the extradition order. 20. On 26 October 2006 the applicant was extradited to Greece. 21. The European Convention on Extradition, signed in Paris on 13 December 1957 and ratified by Italy by Law no. 300 of 30 January 1963, came into force in respect of Italy on 4 November 1963. It was amended by the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, signed on 17 March 1978, which came into force in respect of Italy on 23 April 1985. The relevant provisions, as amended, read as follows. Article 8 – Pending proceedings for the same offences “The requested Party may refuse to extradite the person claimed if the competent authorities of such Party are proceeding against him in respect of the offence or offences for which extradition is requested.” Article 9 – Non bis in idem “Extradition shall not be granted if final judgment has been passed by the competent authorities of the requested Party upon the person claimed in respect of the offence or offences for which extradition is requested. Extradition may be refused if the competent authorities of the requested Party have decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings in respect of the same offence or offences.” Article 12 – The request and supporting documents “1. The request [for extradition] shall be in writing and shall be addressed by the Ministry of Justice of the requesting Party to the Ministry of Justice of the requested Party; however, use of the diplomatic channel is not excluded. Other means of communication may be arranged by direct agreement between two or more Parties. 2. The request shall be supported by: (a) the original or an authenticated copy of the conviction and sentence or detention order immediately enforceable or of the warrant of arrest or other order having the same effect and issued in accordance with the procedure laid down in the law of the requesting Party; (b) a statement of the offences for which extradition is requested. The time and place of their commission, their legal descriptions and a reference to the relevant legal provisions shall be set out as accurately as possible; and (c) a copy of the relevant enactments or, where this is not possible, a statement of the relevant law and as accurate a description as possible of the person claimed, together with any other information which will help to establish his identity and nationality.” Article 16 – Provisional arrest “1. In case of urgency the competent authorities of the requesting Party may request the provisional arrest of the person sought. The competent authorities of the requested Party shall decide the matter in accordance with its law. 2. The request for provisional arrest shall state that one of the documents mentioned in Article 12, paragraph 2.a, exists and that it is intended to send a request for extradition. It shall also state for what offence extradition will be requested and when and where such offence was committed and shall so far as possible give a description of the person sought. 3. A request for provisional arrest shall be sent to the competent authorities of the requested Party either through the diplomatic channel or direct by post or telegraph or through the International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol) or by any other means affording evidence in writing or accepted by the requested Party. The requesting authority shall be informed without delay of the result of its request. 4. Provisional arrest may be terminated if, within a period of 18 days after arrest, the requested Party has not received the request for extradition and the documents mentioned in Article 12. It shall not, in any event, exceed 40 days from the date of such arrest. The possibility of provisional release at any time is not excluded, but the requested Party shall take any measures which it considers necessary to prevent the escape of the person sought.

{'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 1951 and lives in Lublin. 6. The applicant was a surgeon at the Hospital no. 4 in Lublin with thirty‑two years of practice and who started kidney‑transplant operations there. He was also an assistant professor at the Lublin Medical Academy. 7. In 1998 the applicant was diagnosed with sleep apnoea (a sleep disorder characterised by pauses in breathing during sleep) and since then was required to use a respirator when asleep. 8. At 6 a.m. on 1 June 2006 five armed plain‑clothes police officers came to the applicant’s flat to arrest him. According to the applicant, they were violently knocking on the door. They presented the prosecutor’s order for the applicant’s arrest. 9. At about 8 a.m. the applicant was brought in handcuffs to his clinic. The event was seen by hospital staff and patients. The police searched the applicant’s locker. The applicant’s arrest was filmed by one of the police officers. Subsequently, the applicant was brought to the Lublin Regional Police Headquarters where he was questioned. He was informed of the bribe‑taking charges against him. 10. After questioning, the applicant was taken to the Lublin Military Hospital for a medical check. Doctor O. issued a certificate that the applicant could be held in detention and recommended the use of the respirator. 11. Subsequently, the applicant was brought to the Lublin‑Północ District Prosecutor. The prosecutor charged him with ten counts of accepting material benefits from his patients for medical treatment and/or making the provision of such treatment conditional upon receiving material benefits (Article 228 § 1 and Article 228 § 4 of the Criminal Code respectively). The charges related to the period between 1997 and 2004 and the impugned amounts ranged from 100 to 500 zlotys (approx. 25 to 125 euros). 12. The applicant submitted that on 1 June he had been twice approached by police officers from the anti‑corruption unit and once three months later. According to the applicant, they promised him a beneficial treatment if he would confess and name other doctors engaged in corrupt practices. The applicant refused. 13. On 1 June 2006 the Lublin District Court granted the prosecution’s request and remanded the applicant in custody until 1 September 2006. It found as follows: “The prosecution’s request is well‑founded and should be granted. The evidence gathered so far in the proceedings points to a strong likelihood – within the meaning of Article 249 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – that the suspect committed the misdemeanours with which he was charged. [That likelihood] is shown by the depositions of the witnesses who described in an extensive and precise manner the circumstances concerning the acts imputed to the suspect. The suspect is charged with commission of ten misdemeanours; in respect of each of those misdemeanours he is liable to a maximum sentence of at least 8 years’ imprisonment, and thus the need to apply detention on remand in order to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings is justified by the severe penalty to which the suspect is liable. The real possibility that such a penalty would be imposed follow from the multitude of acts, their character and circumstances. The reasons militating against the imposition of detention on remand specified in Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not identified. The suspect does not have dependent children, and as regards his state of health, it transpires from his medical examination that he may be held in a “room for arrested persons” possessing a respirator and medication.” 14. At about 6 p.m. on 1 June 2006 the applicant was taken to the Lublin Detention Centre. According to the applicant, he was put in a cell of 10 square meters with five other inmates. He was afraid that one of them could unplug his respirator. 15. The applicant appealed against the detention order. He argued that the imposition of detention on remand could seriously jeopardise his life or health as he suffered from sleep apnoea. In the case of a power cut or the unplugging of the respirator by one of the co‑detainees the applicant would be exposed to a risk to his life. He also argued that the certificate issued by doctor O. concerned a short period of detention and did not attest that he could be held in detention for a period of three months. Secondly, he submitted that there were no concrete circumstances to substantiate the risk that he would obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings if non‑custodial measures had been applied. On the contrary, the applicant was a surgeon enjoying good professional reputation and a law‑abiding citizen. 16. On 20 June 2006 a group of doctors from the hospital no. 4 and the Lublin Medical Academy petitioned the Lublin District Prosecutor to release the applicant. The applicant did not submit any information about the follow‑up to this petition. 17. On 22 June 2006 the Lublin Regional Court upheld the detention order of 1 June 2006. It found, inter alia, that: “The suspect is charged, among others, with the offence specified in Article 228 § 4 of the Criminal Code in respect of which he is liable to a sentence exceeding eight years’ imprisonment. It should be noted that the circumstances concerning the significant social danger of the suspect’s acts, his base motives, the large number of acts and their character justify the supposition that the imposition of a severe penalty of imprisonment within the meaning of Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a real possibility. By “the liability to severe penalty” in the light of this provision it should be understood that the fact of having charged a suspect with a crime or misdemeanour for which he is liable to a statutory maximum sentence of at least eight years’ imprisonment gives rise to a legal presumption that the likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed may prompt the suspect to undertake actions obstructing the proper conduct of the proceedings (decision of the Supreme Court of 29 August 2000, case no. II KZ 115/00, unreported). In the light of the foregoing it is necessary to impose detention on remand in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, and other more lenient preventive measures may have been insufficient at the present stage of the proceedings.” 18. As regards the applicant’s state of health, the Regional Court found no reasons indicating that holding him in custody would seriously jeopardise his life or health. It noted that the applicant was provided with constant medical care in detention and that he could be detained in an appropriate medical establishment if his condition so required. 19. According to the applicant, on 10 July 2006 he was chained and taken to a hospital for examination of his lungs. 20. On 22 August 2006 the Lublin Regional Medical Chamber issued a guarantee for the applicant and requested the authorities to vary the preventive measure. No further information was provided by the applicant in this respect. 21. On 28 August 2006 the Lublin District Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 1 December 2006. It found that the investigation could not have been concluded within the period of three months due to “particular circumstances of the case”, namely the need to hear evidence from a very large number of witnesses – patients treated by the applicant. On that ground it was justified under Article 263 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prolong the applicant’s detention beyond the ordinary three‑month period. 22. The District Court found that the initial reasons justifying the applicant’s detention, namely the reasonable suspicion of having committed the impugned offences and the real risk of a severe sentence being imposed were still valid. It noted that the evidence gathered so far in the case pointed to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. Furthermore, the character of the imputed acts, their number and legal classification indicated the severity of the penalty to which he was liable (eight or ten years’ imprisonment depending on the charge). In the court’s view, the significant social danger of the imputed acts and the manner in which the applicant had operated made the imposition of a severe penalty very likely. According to the court, other, non‑custodial, preventive measures would not have been sufficient to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings since the applicant might unlawfully obstruct the proceedings if released, in particular as the investigation was still ongoing. 23. The District Court held that the applicant’s release on health grounds was not called for. According to a medical certificate of 28 August 2006 he suffered from some ailments but could be treated in the prison. In addition, he was provided with medical care. 24. The applicant’s lawyer appealed on 29 August 2006. He submitted that the acts imputed to the applicant could not have been considered as criminal offences but as acts of gratitude of customary nature. He underlined that the lower court’s finding that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings was entirely groundless and arbitrary supposition. In addition, the applicant’s personal circumstances before the commission of the imputed acts indicated that the penalty to be imposed on him would not have been severe. Furthermore, the lawyer argued that having regard to the applicant’s condition (sleep apnoea) his continued detention had serious negative implications for his health. In the alternative, the lawyer requested the court to impose non‑custodial preventive measures. 25. On 31 August 2006 the Lublin Regional Court held a hearing to examine the applicant’s appeal. The adoption of a decision was postponed at the request of the applicant’s lawyer who wished to obtain information from the detention centre whether the applicant had been able to use the respirator and whether his illness might be treated in detention. The applicant was examined by a doctor of the Lublin Remand Centre on 22 September 2006. He was diagnosed, inter alia, with hypertension, sleep apnoea, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and cardiac dysrhythmia. The doctor found that the applicant’s general condition was relatively good and opined that he could be treated in detention. The medical certificate was received by the court on the same day. 26. The court scheduled the next hearing for 28 September 2006. The hearing was adjourned since the court considered it necessary to obtain a forensic opinion from the Lublin Medical Academy as to whether the applicant’s illness could be treated in detention. On 16 October 2006 the Lublin Medical Academy informed the court that the requested opinion could not be prepared because the applicant was its employee. On 17 October the court requested the Poznań Medical Academy to prepare a forensic opinion. The request was repeated on 8 November 2006. The opinion was submitted on 15 November 2006. It stated that the applicant’s ailments were of chronic nature and that there was no possibility of a complete recovery. The opinion concluded that the applicant could be treated in detention. In view of his condition, it was necessary to ensure to the applicant frequent medical checks, in particular by a cardiologist and pulmonologist and the regular administration of prescribed drugs. Furthermore, he should be ensured the use of his respirator. 27. The applicant submitted that the opinion of 15 November 2006 had been prepared solely on the basis of his medical records. He was not consulted or examined by doctors from the Poznań Medical Academy. 28. On 23 November 2006 the Lublin Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision. It concurred with the lower court that the basic condition for the applicant’s detention on remand, namely the reasonable suspicion of having committed the impugned offences, had been satisfied (Article 249 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). In addition, the particular condition set out in Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (severity of the likely penalty) had also been satisfied. In this respect, the Regional Court invoked the same elements as in its earlier decision which warranted the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant (see paragraph 17 above). It further noted that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed might induce the applicant to obstruct the proceedings. In this regard the court stated that: “The court applying detention on remand is thus under no obligation to indicate that the suspect will surely undertake such actions [aimed at obstruction of the proceedings].” The court found that the applicant’s continued detention on remand was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and that no other preventive measures would have been sufficient at this stage of the proceedings. 29. The Regional Court further found that the applicant’s state of health did not justify his release. It relied on a medical certificate of 22 September 2006 and the expert report of 15 November 2006. It further noted that the applicant could be detained in an appropriate medical establishment had his condition so required. 30. On 29 November 2006 the Lublin District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 1 March 2007. It further held that the applicant would be released if he put up bail in the amount of PLN 30,000 (approx. EUR 7,500) by 13 December 2006. The court found that it was justified to prolong the applicant’s detention beyond the ordinary three‑month period. It noted that since August 2006 the prosecutor questioned several dozen of witnesses and as a result he charged the applicant with the commission of at least ten additional offences under Article 228 § 1 and Article 228 § 4 of the Criminal Code. It also noted that the case could develop further since the prosecutor had planned to question many more witnesses. 31. The court found that the reasons justifying the applicant’s detention on remand were still valid. The evidence in the case supported the reasonable suspicion against the applicant. Furthermore, the number of charges (at least twenty at the time of the court’s decision) and other elements relied on by the court earlier indicated that the applicant was likely to be sentenced to a severe penalty. However, having regard to the fact that the most severe preventive measure had been already applied for nearly six months and that the prosecutor had carried out many investigatory acts, the court found that bail would be a sufficient measure to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings at that stage. 32. Lastly, relying on the medical certificate of 22 September 2006 and the expert report of 15 November 2006 the court found that the applicant’s state of health did militate against his detention on remand. 33. The bail was paid and the applicant was released on 30 November 2006. 34. On 7 December 2006 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the prosecution’s appeal against the decision to release the applicant on bail. It agreed with the lower court that the particular condition set out in Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (severity of the likely penalty) had been satisfied in the applicant’s case. However, the fact of this condition being satisfied could not lead to automatic extension of detention on remand. In accordance with Article 257 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the application of the most severe preventive measure was limited to exceptional cases, namely those where there were grounds to assume that other measures would not have been sufficient to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings. In the court’s view, at the current stage of the proceedings, the application of detention on remand was not appropriate since – in accordance with the principle of proportionality of the application of preventive measures – they should be applied in the manner that was commensurate to the existing risk to the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court found that in the present case there had been no grounds to consider that the applicant would have interfered with the proper conduct of the proceedings because of the severity of the likely penalty. The applicant made his statements in the case, was not previously convicted and had a permanent abode. It was incorrect on the part of the prosecutor to argue that the risk of obstructing the proceedings was justified by the fact that the case could have developed further and the related necessity to question more witnesses. The court emphasised that the severity of the likely penalty alone did not constitute a sufficient ground for application of detention on remand unless it was linked with a substantiated risk that a suspect might take actions obstructing the proper conduct of the proceedings with a view to avoiding the likely penalty. The evidence collected in the case did not provide any grounds for such an assumption. The court concluded that bail would be a sufficient preventive measure in the applicant’s case. 35. The applicant submitted that during his detention he had been intimidated by the authorities in various ways. Apparently, his respirator was damaged by the prison guards during searches of the cell. He was made to wait five weeks in pain for a visit to a dentist. He was not provided with a cheap drug against his hypertension. For two weeks he was put in cell no. 60 with five smokers which was very difficult given his condition. Later, he was put in cell no. 38 which had been previously occupied by prisoners suffering from tuberculosis but had not been disinfected. In that cell there was a toilet annex which did not provide any privacy. 36. According to the medical certificate of 1 December 2006 issued by a specialist in lung diseases the symptoms of the applicant’s sleep disorder intensified. He recommended that the applicant be treated in a specialised institute in Warsaw. 37. In December 2006 and April 2007 the applicant was hospitalised and diagnosed with ischaemic heart disease. According to the medical certificate of 28 December 2006 the applicant had lost 26 kilograms in weight. Due to his condition following the release the applicant has been unable to practise as a doctor for a certain time.

{'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 1939 and lives in Bucharest. 6. On 16 March 1998 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against a third party, I.L., accusing him of aggravated theft, rape and unlawful deprivation of liberty. She alleged that on the night between 14 and 15 March 1998, I.L. had entered her lodgings and repeatedly hit her, threatened to kill her if she did not give him the money she owed him and other assets, and raped her. She claimed that the violence and threats had started at about 7.30 p.m. on 14 March 1998 and lasted until 4 a.m. the next day. She also claimed that when he had left, I.L. had taken with him 250 German Marks and 100 American Dollars (USD), a travelling bag, two leather jackets, as well as the original documents of a building belonging to her. 7. As evidence of the physical violence to which she had been subjected, the applicant presented a medical certificate issued on 16 March 1998 by the Mina Minovici National Institute of Forensic Medicine. The certificate stated that she had traumatic lesions that could have been caused by blows with a hard object and that she would need at least eight to nine days of medical care to recover. The certificate made no mention of rape. 8. On 17 March 1998 the applicant gave a written statement. On 2 April 1998 she gave a supplementary statement by which she added a civil complaint to her initial criminal complaint. 9. On 8 April 1998 the prosecutor started a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations against I.L. concerning aggravated theft and unlawful deprivation of liberty. 10. On the same day I.L. was arrested and remanded in custody for thirty days. On 4 May 1998 the County Court extended his detention for another thirty days. On 6 June 1998 the court decided not to further extend I.L.’s detention and ordered his release from prison. 11. The investigators searched I.L’s home, but only found the documents of the building. 12. I.L. was questioned by the prosecutor on 8 and 9 April and 20 October 1998. He stated that the applicant had borrowed USD 17,000 from him on 25 August 1996 and that she had refused to return the money. He claimed that she had lodged the criminal complaint so that he would not ask for reimbursement of the loan. As regards the documents belonging to the applicant found at his home, he contended that they had been given to him by the applicant. 13. On 6 and 9 April 1998 the prosecuting authorities heard a witness, D.B., a common friend of I.L. and the applicant. D.B. stated that he had borrowed USD 12,000 from I.L. and had also been threatened and held against his will by the latter in 1997 in order to make him return the money. 14. On 2, 6, 28 and 29 April 1998 the prosecutor took statements from seven witnesses proposed by the applicant. Most of them had not been present at the events but had seen the traces of violence on the applicant. 15. On 28 May 1998 D.P.S., I.L.’s friend, gave a statement according to which I.L. had spent the whole evening of 14 March 1998 with her. Moreover, at about 8 p.m. R.C. had paid them a visit and at about 10.30 p.m. I.L. had had a telephone conversation with A.M.I. 16. R.C. and A.M.I. confirmed the visit and the telephone conversation with I.L. in their statements before the investigating authorities. 17. On 15 May, 9 June and 20 October 1998, the applicant was invited to take part in a confrontation with I.L. She refused, claiming that she was afraid of I.L. 18. The applicant gave a statement on 28 May 1998. 19. On 5 August 1999 the criminal investigation office of the Bucharest Police considered the criminal-investigation stage terminated. They proposed that I.L. be indicted on a charge of aggravated theft under Article 211 § 2 (f) of the Criminal Code (“the C.C.”) and that the investigation into the allegation of unlawful deprivation of liberty under Article 189 § 1 of the C.C. be discontinued. They noted that the applicant had added a civil complaint to the criminal proceedings. 20. On 24 April 2000 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court rejected the proposal and remitted the case for additional investigation. It held that the evidence was not sufficient because the investigation had not been performed thoroughly. It considered that one witness should be re-heard and two new witnesses heard. It also pointed out that the minutes drafted by the investigating authorities on the occasion of the confrontations were too brief. 21. On 12 March 2001 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court referred the case back to the investigating authorities because they had returned the file without following the instructions given in its decision of 24 April 2000. 22. On 7 February 2003 the investigating authorities sent the case back to the prosecutor’s office, proposing that the criminal investigation against I.L. be discontinued. They noted, inter alia, that the applicant had given a statement according to which she had been raped by I.L. 23. On 17 March 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against I.L. It concluded that I.L. had not committed the offences as the applicant’s allegations had not been supported by any evidence. It also noted that the applicant had claimed in her statement before the prosecutor that I.L. had raped her. 24. On 20 May 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal quashed that decision. It upheld the decision to discontinue the investigation in respect of the charges of unlawful deprivation of liberty under Article 189 of the C.C. and aggravated theft under Article 211 § 2 (f) of the C.C., but held that the legal basis for that decision was wrong. It observed that there was evidence in the file concerning the commission of the offence of “bodily injury” under Article 180 § 2 of the C.C. Therefore it referred the case back to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court for it to continue the investigation in that connection. 25. Consequently, on 11 August 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court decided to discontinue the investigation into the allegation of aggravated theft. It decided to continue the investigation with respect to the allegation of physical violence, classifying the offence as bodily injury under Article 180 § 2 of the C.C., and to investigate the allegation of threatening behaviour under Article 193 of the C.C. 26. On an unspecified date in 2004 the file was transferred to the Bucharest District Court. It appears that a first hearing before that court was held on 16 April 2004. The applicant was assisted by a lawyer of her choice. The District Court adjourned the hearings several times because of the failure to duly notify I.L. of the hearings scheduled on 14 May, 4 and 25 June, 17 September, 8 and 29 October 2004. On 21 January 2005 the court became aware that I.L. had left the country for the United States of America (U.S.A.). 27. On 22 April 2005 the applicant reiterated her intention to seek compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and submitted a written request indicating the amounts she sought to obtain from I.L. 28. On the same day the Bucharest District Court heard the applicant, who maintained her previous allegations. She also stated that I.L. had raped her and that he should therefore be charged with rape as well. The court also noted that the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court had delivered a decision on 11 August 2003 in which it had not examined the applicant’s allegations concerning the offence of unlawful deprivation of liberty under Article 189 of the C.C. Accordingly, the court referred the case back to the prosecutor’s office for the investigation of the applicant’s allegations concerning the offences of unlawful deprivation of liberty and rape. 29. On 31 January 2006 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest District Court decided to discontinue the investigation into the allegation of rape on the ground that the offence had not been proved. It sent the case to the Bucharest District Court for analysis of the criminal complaint of bodily injury. The prosecutor’s office also pointed out that the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court had in fact examined the applicant’s allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty. 30. The District Court adjourned the hearings of 17 March, 14 April and 19 May 2006 for failure to properly summon the applicant. 31. On 15 August 2006 I.L.’s lawyer submitted a written statement from I.L. alleging a lack of impartiality on the part of the court because the judge, L.G., who had presided over the single-judge panel of the Bucharest District Court which had delivered the decision of 22 April 2005, was again in charge of his case. On 1 September 2006 the judge asked to be withdrawn from the case. On 7 September 2006 a new single-judge panel examined the request and decided that judge L.G. could examine the case, as in her prior decision she had not examined the merits of the case. 32. On 6 October 2006 the Bucharest District Court raised of its own motion the issue of the limitation period for criminal liability in respect of the offences of threatening behaviour and bodily injury, which had expired on 15 September 2002 and 15 September 2005 respectively. It therefore dismissed the applicant’s criminal complaint. The court did not examine her civil complaint, holding that she had not added a civil complaint to the criminal proceedings. 33. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, claiming that the limitation period had expired because of the ineffectiveness of the investigation. She argued that she had lodged a criminal complaint immediately after the offences had been committed, but that it had taken six years for the first court hearing to be held. After eleven hearings the file had been sent back to the prosecutor’s office. She also claimed that after her repeated requests for and complaints about the examination of her case, the file had been registered again with the Bucharest District Court in March 2006. 34. The appeal was dismissed as unfounded by the Bucharest County Court on 29 January 2007. The court confirmed that the limitation period had expired.

{'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 1967, 1974, 1953 and 1961 respectively and live in Baia Mare. 6. On 1 April 2001 the Cluj Military Security Department started secretly monitoring the applicants’ telephone conversations on the basis of an order issued by the Military Prosecutor’s Office attached to the National Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (“the Military Prosecutor’s Office”). The surveillance order issued by the Military Prosecutor’s Office was based on Law no. 51/1991 on national security (“the National Security Act”). The applicants were suspected of being part of a network trafficking in Schengen visas. 7. The first two applicants were at the material time Romanian army officers, while the last two applicants were civilians. 8. On 2 October 2002 the first two applicants were questioned for the first time at the Military Prosecutor’s Office as part of the investigation initiated by the domestic authorities against a network of individuals trafficking in Schengen visas. At the material time the two applicants had not been charged with any offence and were not assisted by a lawyer. The first applicant had allegedly been pressurised by the prosecutor to sign a written statement. The second applicant was detained by the Military Prosecutor’s Office for twenty hours, allegedly without an arrest warrant in his name and without being informed about the reasons for his detention. 9. On 3 October 2002 the second applicant was heard by the Military Prosecutor’s Office for the second time. No charges had been brought against him at the time. He was informed of his right to be assisted by a legal representative and agreed that one could be appointed for him. 10. On 12 December 2002 the third applicant was questioned at the Military Prosecutor’s Office for the first time. At the time he had not been informed of the charges brought against him and he was not assisted by a lawyer. 11. On 13 December 2002 the fourth applicant was questioned for the first time at the Military Prosecutor’s Office. At the time he had not been charged with any criminal offence and was not assisted by a legal representative. His written statement contained only confirmation that he had been using a company mobile phone and the phone number attached to the phone since May 2000. On the same day the fourth applicant was summoned to appear at the Military Prosecutor’s Office on 16 December 2002. 12. By a Military Prosecutor’s Order issued on the same date a criminal investigation was opened (ȋnceperea urmăririi penale) against the first three applicants for complicity in bribery and aiding an offender. The Prosecutor’s Order did not expressly state that a criminal investigation had been opened against the fourth applicant as well, although his name and the unlawful act he was suspected of was mentioned in the order. 13. On the same date, in the presence of the chosen legal representative of the first two applicants and of the officially appointed legal representative of the third applicant, the previously mentioned three applicants were charged by the domestic authorities with complicity in bribery and aiding an offender, and were heard in respect of the charges brought against them. They maintained and reiterated their previous statements and they were presented with the evidence available in the file. In addition, they stated that they did not request any other evidence. 14. On 16 December 2002, in the presence of an officially appointed legal representative, the fourth applicant was charged with complicity in bribery and was questioned in respect of the charges brought against him. He too reiterated his previous statement. He was presented with the evidence available in the file. 15. On 20 December 2002 the Military Prosecutor’s Office indicted the four applicants and sent their case to trial before the Bucharest Military County Court. The Military Prosecutor’s Office relied mainly on transcripts of the recordings of the applicants’ telephone conversations, witness statements by some of the individuals the applicants had unlawfully helped to obtain visas, and the applicants’ own statements. 16. On 23 and 24 December 2002 three newspaper articles were published in a national newspaper and on news websites reporting on the four applicants’ indictment and the offences they were suspected of. 17. At the hearing of 4 March 2003 the applicants sought an adjournment of the proceedings in order to allow them to acquaint themselves with the contents of the secret file of the case to prepare their defence. 18. At the hearing of 11 March 2003 the four applicants were heard by the Bucharest Military County Court. They all maintained their statements given before the domestic authorities over the course of the criminal investigation. The first-instance court also ordered the summoning of the individuals unlawfully helped by the applicants to obtain visas, although the applicants expressly stated that they did not insist on those people being heard. 19. At the hearing of 18 March 2003 the first-instance court heard some of the witnesses summoned on 11 March 2003 and ordered the re‑summoning of the witnesses who had not attended the hearing, although the applicants had once more expressly stated that they did not insist on the remaining witnesses being heard. 20. At the hearing of 26 March 2003 the first-instance court ordered the re-summoning of the witnesses who had not attended the previous hearings, although the applicants had expressly stated that the hearing of those witnesses was not necessary and could not provide any new information in respect of the circumstances of the case. 21. At the hearing of 8 April 2003 the first-instance court allowed the applicants to submit documentary evidence and acceded to their request that the hearing of the remaining witnesses be dispensed with as not necessary to the case. In addition, it noted that no other demands or requests for evidence had been lodged by the applicants, and declared the judicial investigation of the case closed. The court adjourned the hearing in order to allow the parties to make written submissions. 22. By a judgment of 22 April 2003 the Bucharest Military County Court convicted all the applicants of complicity in bribery and aiding an offender, and sentenced them to prison terms of between six months and three years and six months. It held that the second applicant had been pardoned and suspended the sentences of the remaining three applicants for a period of four years. It found amongst other things that once they had been presented with the transcripts of their phone conversations the applicants had admitted to committing the offences they were charged with. Moreover, the transcripts of the applicants’ telephone conversations contained proof of their involvement in unlawful activities, although the court held that the secret monitoring of the applicants’ telephone conversations had not met the formal requirements provided for by the applicable rules on criminal procedure. In particular, in spite of the court’s repeated requests, the prosecution had failed to submit: the Military Prosecutor’s Office’s order authorising the tapping of the applicants’ phones between 17 April 2001 and 2 October 2002; the complete transcripts of the recordings; the certification of the recordings’ authenticity; and the records containing the list of the telephone numbers monitored by the authorities. The applicants appealed against the judgment. 23. On 11 November 2003 the Military Court of Appeal, sitting in a panel of judges which included the judge P.P., allowed the applicants’ appeal, quashed the judgment of 22 April 2003, and ordered a retrial from the moment of deliberation. The court of appeal held that the first-instance court had disregarded the applicable rules on criminal procedure and had deliberated on the case in a single-judge formation, while the legal requirement was a two-judge formation. 24. By an interlocutory judgment of 5 March 2004 the Bucharest Military County Court allowed the applicants’ request for the hearing of the witnesses C.C., M.P. and A.M., after their legal representative took it upon himself to submit to the court the addresses of the aforementioned witnesses. In addition, the court allowed of its own motion the parties to submit observations on the admissibility as evidence of the transcripts of the recordings of the applicant’s telephone conversations included in the secret surveillance case file. Furthermore, it noted that the applicants’ legal representatives had argued that the aforementioned recordings had been carried out unlawfully and could not be considered as evidence in the case. The court also ordered the summoning by orders to appear (mandate de aducere) of all the witnesses mentioned by the Military Prosecutor’s Office in the order of indictment who had not previously been heard by the court, including the three witnesses expressly requested by the applicants. Lastly, it ordered the Military Prosecutor’s Office to provide additional explanations concerning the lawfulness of the interception of the applicants’ telephone conversations, the recordings of which were attached to the secret surveillance file of the case. 25. On the same date the applicants’ legal representative submitted to the court the addresses of witnesses C.C., M.P. and A.M. 26. At the hearing of 23 March 2004 the first-instance court noted that only some of the summoned witnesses were present, and proceeded to hear them. Witnesses C.C., P.M. and M.A. had not attended the hearing. In addition, it ordered the re-summoning of some of the missing witnesses, but not of witnesses C.C., P.M. and M.A. 27. By an interlocutory judgment of 6 April 2004 the first-instance court acknowledged the applicants’ decision not to insist on the hearing of the absent witnesses. In addition, it noted that according to the applicants’ submission the recordings of their telephone conversation could not be adduced to the file because they had been unlawful. Also, the Prosecutor’s Order of 13 December 2002 did not expressly state that a criminal investigation had been opened against the fourth applicant as well, probably because there had been confusion between the fourth and the third applicants’ names. 28. By a judgment of 15 April 2004 the Bucharest Military County Court convicted the applicants of complicity in bribery and aiding an offender and sentenced them to prison sentences of between six months and two years. It held that the second applicant had been pardoned and suspended the sentences of the remaining three applicants for a period of four years. In delivering its sentence the court relied mainly on the witnesses’ and the applicants’ statements. It also held that the transcripts of the recordings of the applicants’ telephone conversations had not met the formal requirements provided for by the applicable rules on criminal procedure. In particular, after the recording of the conversation the investigating authorities had to produce records containing information about the authorisation for the surveillance, the names and numbers of the telephones used for the recorded conversations, the date and time of each conversation, and the number of the device on which the conversation had been recorded. Also, the full content of the conversation had to be reproduced in writing and certified as authentic. Moreover, the original device containing the conversation bearing the seal of the investigating body had to be made available. However, the Military Prosecutor’s Office had failed to submit the full content of the recordings to the court, although it had repeatedly been asked to do so. Furthermore, the court had requested the prosecutor’s office to submit information on whether the recordings of the applicants’ telephone conversations attached to the case file had met the lawful requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, without success. Lastly, the court had failed to examine the fourth applicant’s argument concerning the failure of the prosecutor’s order to expressly state that a criminal investigation had also been opened against him. The applicants appealed against the judgment. 29. They argued that the first-instance court had wrongly assessed the evidence and misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions, and that the domestic authorities had failed to open a criminal investigation against the fourth applicant. 30. The hearings before the Military Court of Appeal were adjourned three times, on 13 September, 18 October and 22 November 2004, on account of the authorities’ failure to summon some of the parties. The merits of the case were not examined by the domestic court on the above‑mentioned dates. Judge P.P. was a member of the panel of judges on all three occasions. There is no evidence in the file that the applicants challenged the composition of the court or that they raised this argument before the domestic courts at a later stage of the proceedings. 31. By a judgment of 31 January 2005 the Military Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. It held amongst other things that although many of the individuals who had been helped by the applicants to obtain visas could not be identified in order to be heard by the courts, the transcripts of the recordings of the applicants’ telephone conversations proved that the applicants had demanded sums of money as payment for their alleged influence, regardless of whether the promised action had been taken or not. The applicants appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment. 32. The applicants reiterated their arguments that the lower courts had wrongly assessed the evidence and misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions. The fourth applicant also submitted that the lower courts had failed to examine his argument concerning the failure of the domestic authorities to open a criminal investigation against him. 33. By a final judgment of 22 December 2005 the Court of Cassation, sitting as an ordinary criminal court, dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law. It held that the lower court had correctly assessed the available evidence and established the applicants’ guilt. The applicants’ arguments that the offences had not taken place had been examined in detail by the lower courts, were rebutted by their own actions, and did not have any lawful grounds. Although many of the individuals who had been helped by the applicants to obtain visas could not be identified in order to be heard by the courts, the lower courts had correctly established that the transcripts of the recordings of the applicants’ telephone conversations proved that the applicants had demanded sums of money as payment for their alleged influence, regardless of whether the promised action had been taken or not. In this context, the obstruction of the investigation by the second applicant could not be ignored. On 2 October 2002 the second applicant had telephoned the wife of one of the co-accused to ask her to “hide and destroy a diary” which contained a breakdown of the money taken from the victims by the aforementioned co-accused. Consequently, the second applicant’s guilt had also been correctly established. There is no evidence in the file that the last-instance court examined the appeal point raised by the fourth applicant. 34. The applicants submitted to the Court a number of newspaper advertisements allegedly published by several third parties offering to act as intermediaries for visa applications.

{'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 are: (1) Ms Isita (also spelled as Yisita) Zhebrailova, born in 1956; (2) Mr Shuddi Vakhayev, born in 1954, and (3) Mr Salavdi Zhebrailov, born in 1980. 5. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Balavdi (also spelled as Balauddi) Zhebrailov, born in 1982. The third applicant is Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov’s brother. The applicants reside in the village of Gekhi, the Chechen Republic. 6. At about 12 midnight on 25 April 2005 a group of four men wearing uniforms and armed with assault rifles burst into the applicants’ property at 23 Pervomayskaya Street in Gekhi. Two of the intruders were wearing masks. The applicants inferred that the intruders were law-enforcement officers. The men ordered the applicants to lie down and grabbed hold of Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov and the third applicant, who was in his underwear. They then dragged them outside, firing several shots in the air to prevent the first and second applicants, as well as their relatives L.Sh. and Kh.A., from following them. The men threw the Zhebrailov brothers into a UAZ vehicle with a beacon on the roof and marked “police” (милиция), which was parked about 300 metres away from the applicants’ house, and drove off. 7. On the outskirts of Gekhi, Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov and the third applicant were transferred from the UAZ vehicle to a VAZ-99 vehicle driven by officer S. of the 2nd Regiment of the Road Police of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic (hereinafter “the 2nd regiment”). The VAZ-99 vehicle took the road leading to Grozny and on the journey the men physically assaulted the Zhebrailov brothers. After a while the car passed through a checkpoint and Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov and the third applicant were taken to the premises of the 2nd regiment. The third applicant recognised the premises because he had come there two months earlier with a friend to apply for a job. 8. Upon arrival the Zhebrailov brothers were put in a cell in a basement, beaten with rifle butts and interrogated about a pistol. After a while they were separated and the third applicant was placed in a cell with another arrestee of about forty years old. From his cell the third applicant could hear Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov screaming whilst being beaten. 9. Shortly thereafter the persons, whom the applicants considered to be officers of the 2rd regiment, returned and physically assaulted the third applicant, saying that Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov had confirmed that the third applicant had a pistol and threatening to take the latter to the military base in Khankala. They kicked and beat the third applicant all over his body and also hit him several times on the head with a rifle butt. Sometime later they dragged the third applicant outside, gave him police trousers and a shirt belonging to his brother and pushed him into a grey UAZ vehicle equipped with a partition for prisoners’ transport. The car carrying the third applicant and two police officers passed through a checkpoint and after a short time stopped in the vicinity of the “northern market” in Grozny, where the third applicant was released. The third applicant then went to the home of an uncle of his who lives in Grozny, from where the third applicant’s relatives took him home on the morning on 26 April 2005. 10. Upon his return home, the third applicant had numerous bruises on his chest, back and legs and also wounds on his head, sustained as a result of the blows with the rifle butt. 11. On 26 April 2005 the third applicant’s relatives took him to the local hospital. While queuing there, the third applicant spotted one of his abductors, officer S. of the 2nd regiment. Fearing reprisals, the applicants immediately left, without obtaining medical assistance. At home the third applicant was treated by a family friend Z., a nurse. She bandaged his head and gave him medication. As a result of the ill-treatment the third applicant could barely walk. He had to stay at home for a week. 12. The applicants have had no news of Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov since his abduction. 13. In support of their account of events, the applicants furnished written statements by L.Sh. and Kh.A. dated 12 and 14 December 2006, and detailed written statements by the first to third applicants dated 5 May and 12 December 2006, 17 January 2007, and 7 January, 15 and 30 March 2010. 14. The Government submitted that the national investigation had established that on the night of 25/26 April 2005, unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had burst into the applicants’ property and had abducted Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov and the third applicant. The abductors had assaulted the third applicant and then released him. 15. The Government submitted some 280 pages from criminal case-file no. 47041 which was opened to look into the events of 26 April 2005. The submitted documents covered the period from April 2005 to December 2009. Many of the documents furnished by the Government were incomplete, such as witness statements submitted only in part. Some documents were illegible. The relevant information may be summarised as follows. 16. The local police were informed of the abduction of the Zhebrailov brothers at 2 a.m. on 26 April 2005. At about 2.15 a.m. on the same day a group of police officers arrived at the applicants’ property. They inspected the crime scene, seized a bullet cartridge found during their inspection and interviewed eight eyewitnesses, including the applicants. The interview records and police officers’ reports referred to the fact that the abductors had worn camouflage uniforms, carried assault rifles, used a UAZ vehicle ‒ with a beacon and a muddied licence plate bearing the inscription “Grozny” ‒ as well as a VAZ-99 vehicle with blackened windows and licence plate number “862”, and had fired shots into the air. In the third applicant’s interview record, he described in detail the circumstances of the abduction and the ensuing events, including his alleged ill-treatment. He also explicitly stated that he and his brother had been detained at the 2nd regiment’s premises and stressed that the men who had interrogated them and assaulted them had not concealed that they belonged to the police. 17. On 20 June 2005 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office (hereinafter “the district prosecutor’s office”) instituted a criminal investigation into the events of 25-26 April 2005 under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). 18. On 27 June 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in case no. 47041. 19. The ballistic examination of the bullet cartridge seized at the crime scene, carried out on 30 June 2005, established that the bullet could have been shot by an AK-47 assault rifle and that the gun could be identified. 20. In the ensuing period between June 2005 and December 2009 the investigators mainly re-interviewed the individuals questioned by the police on 26 April 2005. They also questioned some further witnesses ‒ residents of Gekhi ‒ some of whom confirmed the applicants’ account of events; others stated that they had learnt about the abduction from the applicants. The third applicant’s uncle, R.Zh., interviewed in September 2007, stated that when the third applicant had arrived at his home in Grozny on the morning of 26 April 2005, his head had been covered in blood. When interviewed as a witness in October 2009, Z. stated that after the third applicant’s return home in April 2005, she had treated him for wounds to his head and had given him pain-killing injections. 21. The investigation in case no. 47041 was suspended in August 2005, March 2006, September 2007, November 2009 and on the latest occasion on 4 March 2010. Supervising prosecutors repeatedly set aside those decisions, ordering the investigation to be resumed and pointing to the investigators’ failure to take a number of important steps. For instance, on 26 January 2006, 21 August 2007 and then again, as late as on 23 October 2009, the supervising prosecutors pointed out the investigators’ failure to inspect the premises of the 2nd regiment and verify the allegation of the involvement of its officers in the crime with the participation of the third applicant, in spite of his specific assertions that he had been detained on those premises and that the regiment officers had not concealed that they belonged to the police. The investigators, who had on various dates forwarded several information requests to local law-enforcement agencies to verify those allegations, were instructed to resume the proceedings and take the necessary steps. From the documents submitted it is unclear whether the requested steps were taken. 22. The investigation in case no. 47041 is still pending. 23. On 23 April 2007 the Urus-Martan District Court dismissed as unfounded the applicants’ complaint that the investigation had been ineffective and that the investigators’ had refused to allow the applicants access to the case file. The court stated that the investigators had taken all possible investigative steps and that the applicants’ arguments concerning the procrastination of the investigation were not convincing. 24. On 14 February 2006 the investigators granted the third applicant victim status in criminal case no. 47041 and ordered his medical examination. 25. Expert report no. 152 of 20 February 2006 stated that the third applicant had two scars on the top of the head, which could have been sustained in April 2005 as a result of the impact of a blunt, firm object. 26. On 1 March 2006, in the light of the expert’s findings, the investigators also classified the abductors’ acts under Article 116 § 1 of the Criminal Code (application of physical force to another person, causing physical pain but not resulting in health damage).

{'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 Mayrtup in Shali district, Chechnya. She is the mother of Mr Vakhit (also spelt as Vakhid) Gambulatov, who was born in 1976. 6. On 28 June 2001 (in the documents submitted the date also referred to as 29 June 2001) Mr Vakhit Gambulatov left home and did not return. The next day the applicant and her relatives learned that on 28 June 2001 Mr Vakhit Gambulatov and his fellow villager Mr Ramzan S. had been arrested at the checkpoint located between the villages of Tsentoroy and Bachi-Yurt and taken in an APC to the Kurchaloy district military commander’s office (“the military commander’s office”) and from there to the Kurchaloy temporary district department of the interior (“the Kurchaloy VOVD”) situated in the same courtyard. 7. On 29 June 2001 duty officers at the military commander’s office confirmed that Mr Vakhit Gambulatov had been detained on their premises. For the next couple of weeks the applicant spent every day next to the military commander’s office waiting for her son’s release. On the 15th or 16th day of his detention Mr Vakhit Gambulatov passed a note to the applicant stating that he was not aware of the reasons for his arrest, but that he would be released soon. Every day the applicant brought food for Mr Vakhit Gambulatov, and twice a week she collected his laundry from the guards. 8. At some point in late July 2001 the applicant and her daughter were told by an officer at the military commander’s office that Mr Vakhit Gambulatov would be released on 29 July 2001. However, the applicant’s son was not released and at the beginning of August 2001 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as the beginning of July 2001) a duty officer told the applicant that her son had been transferred elsewhere. 9. The applicant has had no news of her son since. 10. The Government did not dispute the applicant’s statement concerning the factual circumstances of her son’s detention. In their submission concerning the admissibility and merits of the application they stated, amongst other things, the following: “... On 29 June 2001 the applicant’s son Mr Vakhit Gambulatov was taken for identification to the temporary detention centre of the Kurchaloy VOVD. On 26 July 2001 he was released from detention and disappeared. His whereabouts have not been established since ...” 11. The Government submitted copies of documents from the criminal case file no. 39099 opened in connection with the disappearance of Mr Vakhit Gambulatov. The relevant information may be summarised as follows. 12. On 2 August 2001 the applicant complained about her son’s detention to the Argun prosecutor’s office and to the Kurchaloy district military commander’s office. She stated that her son Vakhit had been detained in the Kurchaloy VOVD (the police station) between 28 June and 31 July 2001. 13. On 6 December 2001 the investigators asked the Kurchaloy VOVD for information about Mr Vakhit Gambulatov’s arrest. On the same date the VOVD replied that on 29 June 2001 Mr Vakhit Gambulatov and Mr Ramzan S. had been brought to their premises for a passport check and released on 29 July 2001. 14. On 8 December 2001 the Argun district prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the events under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). The case file was given the number 39099. 15. The investigator sent requests to various temporary detention centres for information about Mr Vakhit Gambulatov’s detention. These requests did not yield any information. 16. On 7 February 2002 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned about the events. She gave a statement concerning her son’s detention at the police station similar to the one submitted before the Court. 17. On 8 February 2002 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was not informed of this. From the contents of the case file it appears that the investigation was suspended between February 2002 and May 2008 and that meanwhile the applicant and her relatives contacted various authorities with requests for assistance in their search for Mr Vakhit Gambulatov and for information on the progress of the investigation into his disappearance. 18. On 15 May 2008 the applicant asked for access to the investigation file and on 16 May 2008 her request was granted. 19. On 29 May 2008 the applicant found a pro bono lawyer who agreed to represent her in the criminal case concerning her son’s disappearance. 20. On 7 July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer asked the investigators to take steps to establish whether Mr Vakhit Gambulatov was detained at the police station on or after 28 June 2001. 21. On 8 July 2008 the investigation was resumed. The applicant was informed. 22. In July 2008 the investigator sent requests for information to various law-enforcement bodies in Chechnya; none of the requests yielded any information. 23. On 11 July 2008 the investigators again questioned the applicant, this time with an interpreter, because of the applicant’s limited knowledge of Russian. The applicant reiterated her previous statement concerning her son’s detention on the premises of the Kurchaloy VOVD and her visits there with her sister Ms D.U. and fellow villagers. She reiterated that she had passed on food and clean clothes to her son while he was detained in the VOVD, and that on 26 July 2001 one of the servicemen at the police station had told her that Mr Vakhit Gambulatov would be released soon; on 31 July 2001 she had arrived at the VOVD, the servicemen had given back the clean clothes she had brought for her son and told her that he had been released on 29 July 2001. The applicant further stated that for several years after her son’s abduction she had complained about his disappearance to a number of law-enforcement bodies, including the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, and to various public organisations which requested information on Mr Vakhit Gambulatov’s whereabouts on her behalf. 24. On 12 July 2008 the investigators questioned the applicant’s son Mr As.G., whose statement was similar to the applicant’s account submitted to the Court. 25. On 13 July 2008 the investigators questioned the applicant’s relative Ms Zh.U., whose statement obtained with interpretation was similar to that of the applicant. In addition, the witness stated that for a number of years the search for Mr Vakhit Gambulatov and the communication with the authorities regarding the matter had been handled by her and the applicant. 26. On 14 July 2008 the investigators questioned the applicant’s daughter Ms S.G., whose statement was similar to the applicant’s account submitted to the Court. 27. On 8 August 2008 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was informed. 28. On 11 September 2008 the applicant asked for an update on the progress of the investigation, and on 12 September 2008 she was provided with an update. 29. On 10 November 2008 the applicant requested that the investigators take steps to examine the grounds for her son’s detention in the VOVD after the arrest. 30. On 10 November 2008 the investigation was resumed and then suspended the following day, 11 November 2008. The applicant was informed. 31. On 13 November 2008 the applicant’s lawyer requested that the investigators take procedural steps to join the investigations of the disappearance of her son Vakhit Gambulatov and that of Mr Ramzan S., as both men had been taken away simultaneously and by the same persons. On 15 November 2008 her request was granted in part. 32. On 19 November 2008 the investigation was resumed. 33. On 19 November 2008 the investigators questioned officers V.D. and A.Ch., who had worked in the Kurchaloy VOVD in 2001. Both officers denied having any information pertaining to the disappearance of the applicant’s son. 34. On 22 November 2008 the investigation was again suspended. The applicant was informed. 35. On 16 August 2009 the applicant’s lawyer requested access to the investigation file, and on 24 August 2009 the investigators granted the request. 36. From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation into the whereabouts of the applicant’s son is still pending.

{'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 were born in 1938 and the third applicant in 1963. They all live in Karlovac. 6. On 1 April 1993 the first and the second applicants’ daughter, who was the third applicant’s sister, was killed in a bar by Z.R., who at the time served as a soldier in the Croatian army. 7. By a judgment of the Karlovac Military Court (Vojni sud u Karlovcu) Z.R. was found guilty of murder and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. 8. On appeal, the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 17 February 1994 upheld the conviction, which thereby became final, but increased the sentence to nine years’ imprisonment. 9. On 15 January 1998 the applicants submitted a request to the State Attorney’s Office for their claim for damages to be settled in connection with the unlawful killing of their relative by a soldier, as required under the Military Service Act, in force at the material time (see paragraph 26 below). 10. On 5 March 1998, after their request was refused, the applicants brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), seeking compensation from the State and Z.R. in connection with the killing of their relative. 11. During the proceedings, the State Attorney’s Office raised a number of substantive and procedural objections to the applicants’ claim against the State. 12. Meanwhile, on 4 October 1999 the applicants withdrew their civil action against Z.R. but maintained their action against the State. 13. Owing to the failure of the applicants’ representative to appear at several hearings, of which the first applicant was informed, on 14 March 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court found that the civil action was considered to have been withdrawn (see paragraph 24 below; section 216 § 4 of the Civil Procedure Act). 14. As no appeal was lodged by the parties, on an unspecified date this decision became final. The applicants later in 2005 attempted to have the statement of finality quashed and to lodge a belated appeal, but this was dismissed by the competent court. 15. On 9 May 2005 the applicants brought their claim for damages before the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu), which meanwhile had acquired competence to hear the case, against the State and Z.R. related to the killing of their family member. 16. During the proceedings, the State Attorney’s Office challenged the applicants’ claim on several procedural grounds, arguing in particular that they had failed to seek to have their claim against the State settled before lodging their civil action, as required under the relevant domestic law (see paragraph 24 below). 17. On 17 March 2010 the Karlovac Municipal Court declared the applicants’ civil action against the State inadmissible, on the grounds that before they lodged their civil action the applicants had failed to attempt to have the case settled with the competent State Attorney’s Office, as required under the relevant domestic law. 18. The applicants challenged the decision of the Karlovac Municipal Court by lodging an appeal before the Karlovac County Court. On 29 July 2010 the Karlovac County Court dismissed their appeal, holding as follows: “Section 186(a) of the Civil Procedure Act (Official Gazette, nos. 117/2003 and 88/2005) provides that a person intending to bring a civil suit against the Republic of Croatia must first submit a request for a settlement to the competent State Attorney’s Office. When there is no doubt that before lodging the civil claim the claimant has failed to settle the case with the competent State Attorney’s Office, the first-instance court is correct to declare such a claim lodged directly before it inadmissible (VS Rev-1124/056 of 14 March 2007). The duty to seek settlement with the State Attorney’s Office is a procedural requirement for lodging a civil action which must be complied with at the moment when the action is lodged. Section 186(a) of the Civil Procedure Act is inapplicable to claims for damages lodged before the courts prior to 1 December 2003. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs on 5 March 1998 lodged an identical claim against the same defendants before the Zagreb Municipal Court ... It is also not disputed that on 14 March 2003, after the conditions for the stay of proceedings had been met twice, a decision was adopted finding that the claim against the first defendant, the Republic of Croatia, was withdrawn. However, these undisputed facts do not mean that the plaintiffs were released from their obligation under section 186(a) of the Civil Procedure Act because they had previously submitted an identical claim. With the amendments to the Civil Procedure Act (Official Gazette no. 117/2003) the duty to seek settlement with the State Attorney’s Office is a procedural requirement for lodging a civil action which must be complied with at the moment when the action is lodged. Further amendments to the Civil Procedure Act (Official Gazette nos. 84/2008 and 123/2008) did not [alter this obligation] with regard to the actions against the Republic of Croatia.” 19. On 27 October 2010 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the Karlovac County Court on the grounds that it unreasonably restricted their right to access to court. They argued that before they brought their civil action of 5 March 1998 before the Zagreb Municipal Court they had attempted to settle the matter with the State Attorney’s Office. However, their request had been refused, and later during the proceedings the State Attorney’s Office had also challenged their claim in the court. The applicants therefore considered that there was no reason to seek another settlement concerning the identical claim brought before the court after it was decided that it had been withdrawn. 20. The applicants also lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 5 November 2010, reiterating their above arguments. 21. On 23 March 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the decisions of the lower courts did not concern individual acts deciding on their civil rights and obligations. 22. On 3 April 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law, endorsing the reasoning of the Karlovac County Court that the applicants had been obliged to seek settlement with the State Attorney’s Office before lodging their action of 9 May 2005. The Supreme Court pointed out: “It should be noted that the procedural requirement for the admissibility of an action under section 186(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the reliance of the lower courts on that provision, do not represent a violation of a plaintiff’s right of access to court. This is because the plaintiff, by complying with that provision, does not lose any of their rights to claim [damages] since, for example, the lodging of a request for settlement interrupts the running of the statutory prescription period ([Article 186(a)] § 3) and the plaintiff may lodge an action in the court if the State Attorney’s Office refuses the request [for settlement] or does not decide on it within three months of the date it was lodged ([Article 186(a)] § 5). It cannot therefore be said that the obligation of the plaintiffs to seek settlement of the claim with the State Attorney’s Office before lodging an action against the Republic of Croatia represents an unreasonable restriction of access to a competent court which can decide the case on the merits as required under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Official Gazette-International Contracts, nos. 18/1997, 6/1999-consolidated text, 8/1999-rectification, 14/2002 and 1/2006). This is because section 186 of the Civil Procedure Act neither impaired the right to lodge a civil action nor the right to have the case decided on the merits ... (see the European Court of Human Rights in Ačimović v. Croatia of 9 October 2003 and Kutić v. Croatia of 1 March 2002).”

{'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 each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of counterfeit software under sections 7 and 8 of the Operational-Search Activities Act of 12 August 1995 (no. 144-FZ). The operations led to their criminal conviction for distribution of counterfeit software. 7. On 6 December 2007 an undercover police officer V called the applicant on the number advertised by him on a job-advertisement site on the Internet and asked him to perform some computer repairs, including the installation of software. The applicant agreed, bought several compact discs with counterfeit software on them and installed the software on V’s computer for 3,300 roubles (RUB) (about 45 euros (EUR)). The relevant part of the recording of the applicant’s conversation with V in the course of the repairs read as follows: “... V: how much will [the installation] cost approximately? Mr Volkov: I don’t know exactly, [it] depends on the programmes to be installed. V: [I need] Photoshop, [Windows] XP etc. Mr Volkov: with Photoshop, it is 200 roubles more. V: We called other companies; they said it would cost about twenty thousand. Why are the prices so different? ... Mr Volkov: [other companies] are probably being careful, unlike me, I come instantly. They are probably afraid of getting caught; they may have done it before and run into some inspection. V: What kind of inspection? Mr Volkov: [Licensing] inspection, if I installed a licensed programme for you, it would cost a lot. V: How much does the licensed programme cost? Mr Volkov: Photoshop is 500 dollars. V: To install? Mr Volkov: No, the programme itself. ... if it is done like now, in a semi-legal way, the price is obviously lower ...” 8. Following the above, the applicant was charged with copyright infringement. The applicant retained a lawyer during the pre-trial proceedings but could no longer afford paying for legal representation in court. He was therefore provided with a legal aid lawyer. 9. On 3 July 2008 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow (District Court) examined the applicant’s case. The applicant testified that he had agreed to help V because he had already performed similar services for his relatives and acquaintances. He also testified that V had asked him to have some programmes installed but did not indicate whether V had specifically asked for unlicensed software. V testified that the police had launched an undercover operation after they had received information incriminating the applicant in the distribution of counterfeit software. The applicant pleaded not guilty to copyright infringement and claimed that the police had incited him to commit the crime. The court found the applicant guilty of copyright infringement and imposed a suspended sentence of one year and three months’ imprisonment with one year’s probation. 10. The applicant lodged an appeal (кассационная жалоба) asking the appellate court (кассационный суд) to examine the case in his presence. In his appeal, he did not request to have a lawyer appointed for the hearing of his case. 11. On 6 August 2008 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow informed by post and telephone Ms D., the applicant’s lawyer in the proceedings before the District Court, that the hearing of the applicant’s appeal had been scheduled for 20 August 2008. The court’s call log indicated that the applicant had no retainer agreement with Ms D. for representation in the appeal proceedings. 12. On 20 August 2008 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s arguments on appeal and upheld his conviction. The applicant was present at the hearing. However, Ms D. did not appear and the applicant did not have any other lawyer to represent him during the appeal hearing. It is not clear whether the applicant requested to have the hearing adjourned or to have replacement counsel appointed. 13. On 10 December 2008 an undercover police officer M called the number advertised by the applicant in the computer-repairs section of a newspaper and asked him to install several computer programmes. The applicant, who was in financial need at the time, downloaded several unlicensed programmes from the Internet and installed them on M’s computer the next day for RUB 3,000 (about EUR 40). The relevant part of the recording of the applicant’s conversation with M in the course of the repairs read as follows: “... M: how much does [this programme] cost? Mr Adamskiy: I did not buy it. M: You did not? Mr Adamskiy: To buy means to go bankrupt. M: [did you get it] from the Internet? Or some other way? Mr Adamskiy: Got it through my peers, [it was] cracked ... M: I don’t really understand this stuff ... If I install it at work, will I get arrested? Mr Adamskiy: I think it is obvious. I would not let any inspections in while the data is downloading. M: ...why? What can happen? Mr Adamskiy: just warning, I personally would not [let anyone inspect]. M: what would happen? ... Do they inspect more often? Mr Adamskiy: yes ... M: will we get jailed? Mr: Adamskiy: No, if it is kept quiet ...” 14. Following the above, the applicant was charged with copyright infringement. On 28 September 2009 the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow examined the applicant’s case. At the trial, the applicant did not claim that M had asked him to have unlicensed software installed. He also confirmed that he had informed M in the course of the installation that the software had been counterfeit. M testified that the police had received information implicating the applicant in the distribution of counterfeit software and had decided to verify that information. The applicant pleaded guilty to copyright infringement but claimed that the police had incited him to commit the crime. The court convicted the applicant and imposed a suspended sentence of one year and six months’ imprisonment with one year’s probation. 15. On 16 November 2009 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence 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 organisation is a non-governmental human rights organisation based in Yerevan. 6. On 12 May 2007 a third person, L.G., who was apparently a witness in a murder investigation, died while at a police station. According to the official version, L.G. died in an attempt to escape by jumping out of a second-floor window of the police station. It appears that this event provoked an outcry among Armenian human rights groups and civil society. 7. On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia, which was followed by mass post-election rallies and protests and an intense standoff between the authorities and the supporters of the opposition, resulting in clashes and at least ten persons being killed. 8. On 1 March 2008 a state of emergency was declared by the President of Armenia for a period of 20 days, during which all public assemblies were banned. 9. On 6 May 2008 the applicant organisation applied to the Mayor of Yerevan, notifying its intention to hold a mourning march on the first anniversary of L.G.’s death. The march was to take place on 12 May from 8 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. It was to start at Republic Square and continue through Nalbandyan Street in the direction of the police station. 10. On 8 May 2008 the Mayor decided to ban the planned event, with reference to Sections 9 § 4 (3) and 13 § 1 (3) of the Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations Act (“the Act”), finding: “According to the official opinion of the Police ... of 8 May 2008 ..., the mass public event held on 1 March 2008 turned into mass disorder resulting in human casualties and not all the circumstances of the crime and offenders have been disclosed, and not all weapons and ammunition used [at that event], whose circulation may pose danger to the lives and health of citizens, have been found in the course of the investigation into the criminal case instituted in connection with that fact by the Special Investigative Service of Armenia[. H]ence, it will be impossible to prevent new crimes, if the mass public event [in question] is held. According to the official opinion of the National Security Service ... of 7 May 2008 ..., the National Security Service of Armenia has credible and verified data which show that the mass public event in question, if allowed, will result in undermining national security, public order, and the health and morality of society, in encroachments on constitutional rights and freedoms and in disorder and [new] crimes.” 11. By a letter of 12 May 2008 this decision was posted to the applicant organisation. On the same date the police, who had apparently been informed of the decision of 8 May 2008, prevented the organisers from holding the planned event. 12. On 13 May 2008 the applicant organisation received the letter of 12 May 2008.

{'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, Senanik Öner and Ferhan Türk, were born in 1952 and 1951 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. 6. On 21 March 2007 the applicants attended the Newroz celebrations in Kızıltepe, a district of Mardin, and made certain speeches concerning the problems of Kurdish people. The relevant extracts from the applicants’ statements can be summarised as follows: “For the attention of the press and public: I celebrate your day of Newroz. I commemorate the civilians who were killed by the members of security forces in Cizre, Nusaybin and Şırnak. The PKK declared a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed and to contribute to the peace establishment process. Subsequently, the PKK also withdrew its armed forces out of the borders of Turkey to maintain peace. We expect affirmative steps from the state. (...) The Kurdish leader, “Sayın[1]” Abdullah Öcalan has been poisoned and this is a very serious problem. Turkey should order an investigation into the Öcalan ‘poisoning’. (...) The state did not take any steps for democratisation or to solve the Kurdish problem. We believe in peace and the state should take appropriate steps for solving the Kurdish problem.’’ 7. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants by the Kızıltepe Public Prosecutor, charging them with disseminating terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation), under Section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). 8. On 15 April 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to one year and eight months’ imprisonment. 9. On 28 December 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. 10. The applicants learned of this decision on 6 March 2012. 11. On 12 October 2012, following an amendment to the law, the Diyarbakır Assize Court revised its judgment pursuant to Provisional Article 1 § 1 of the Law no. 6352 and suspended the execution of the applicants’ sentences.

{'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 1962 and lives in Yerevan. 6. From 1997 to 1999 the applicant worked as the executive director of the Credit Service Bank (hereafter, the Bank). 7. On 19 March 2002 the prosecutor decided to institute criminal proceedings under paragraph 2 of Article 182 of the former Criminal Code (hereafter, the former CC) on account of abuse of official capacity by the former management of the Bank through embezzlement of funds entrusted to it in June 2001 by another company. It appears that at the material time the applicant worked as an advisor to the chamber of control of the Armenian parliament. 8. On 31 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of large‑scale embezzlement, abuse of official capacity and official falsification under paragraph 4 of Article 90, paragraph 1 of Article 182 and Article 187 of the former CC. 9. On 1 April 2003 the applicant was formally charged under paragraph 4 of Article 90, paragraph 1 of Article 182 and Article 187 of the former CC with embezzlement through abuse of his official capacity and official falsification through preparation and use of false accounting documents during his office as the executive director of the Bank from 1997 to 1999, causing damage to the Bank and its clients. It appears that ten other persons were also charged with involvement in these or related crimes. 10. On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the investigator’s application to have the applicant placed in pre-trial detention for a period of two months. The applicant alleged that during the hearing his lawyer had requested the court not to impose detention as a preventive measure, due to the applicant’s poor health. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the District Court on two occasions until 31 August 2003. 11. On 2 April 2003 a group of nine members of the Armenian Parliament applied to the Prosecutor General requesting that the applicant’s detention be replaced by another preventive measure in view of, inter alia, the applicant’s poor health. 12. On 10 April 2003 the General Prosecutor’s Office addressed a letter to the Head of Staff of the Parliament, stating that the applicant’s release was not possible since he had committed a grave crime and had refused to return embezzled funds. 13. On 1 August 2003 a new Criminal Code (hereafter, the new CC) entered into force in Armenia. 14. On 11 August 2003 the charges against the applicant were adapted to the new CC and he was formally charged under Article 179 § 3 (1), Article 214 § 1 and Article 325 § 2 of the new CC. 15. On 14 November 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan found the applicant guilty under Article 179 § 3 (1) and Article 325 § 1 of the new CC. In particular, the applicant was found to have executed a number of financial operations involving bonds and fixed assets, the proceeds of which he embezzled. The District Court sentenced the applicant to six years’ imprisonment without confiscation of property under Article 179 § 3 (1) and terminated the proceedings under Article 325 § 1 by applying a statute of limitations with reference to Article 35 § 1 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). 16. On 29 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal. 17. On 10 April 2006 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal decided to uphold the judgment of the District Court. The Court of Appeal found, inter alia, that: “The first instance court, considering [the applicant’s] ... guilt in preparing and using false documents to be substantiated, rightly terminated the proceedings under Article 325 § 1 of [the CC] on the ground envisaged by Article 35 [§ 1] (6) of [the CCP].” 18. On 20 April 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. In his appeal he argued, inter alia, that Article 325 of the new CC should not have been applied to his case because documents of commercial organisations could not be considered “official”. He should therefore have been penalised under Article 214 of the new CC instead. 19. On 1 June 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Court of Cassation found, inter alia, that: “Documents to which public authorities give legal significance are considered official. Official documents may be issued both by public authorities, their officials and bodies of local self-government, and by legal entities, commercial and other types of organisations. Such documents as credit or other financial documents drawn up by commercial banks can also be considered as [official documents], since they also have legal significance...” 20. On 3 April 2003 the applicant was transferred to Nubarashen detention facility. 21. On 4 April 2003 the applicant was examined at the facility’s medical unit and diagnosed as having a throat tumour. He also complained of a sore throat, loss of voice and chest pain. 22. On 28 April 2003 the applicant was examined by an external doctor who recommended that the applicant be examined by an otolaryngology specialist. 23. On 29 April 2003 the applicant was examined by an otolaryngology specialist who confirmed the diagnosis of a throat tumour. In order to determine the nature of the tumour, the doctor recommended: (a) a biopsy to be carried out; (b) computer tomography of the throat; and (c) further examination and treatment. 24. On 8 May 2003 the applicant, apparently in reaction to the medication that he was taking, showed symptoms of anaphylactic shock such as urticaria, coldness of extremities, severe shivering and a drop in blood pressure to 20/40 followed by loss of consciousness. First aid was provided by the detention facility’s medical unit and an ambulance was called. It appears that thereafter the applicant continued to experience symptoms of allergy such as face and body swelling, itching and blood pressure fluctuations. 25. On 20 May 2003 an external allergy specialist was called who diagnosed the applicant as suffering from Quincke’s oedema, pollinosis and an atypical form of bronchial asthma. 26. On 13 June 2003 the applicant’s condition drastically deteriorated. He experienced laboured breathing, facial swelling, drop in blood pressure to 50/20, swelling of extremities and Quincke’s oedema. First aid was provided. 27. On 10 July 2003 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist. The applicant complained of low spirits, irritability, insomnia and tachycardia, as well as recurring headaches, chest pains and high blood pressure due to frequent emotional stress. From that day on the applicant remained under the psychiatrist’s regular supervision, during which it was found that the applicant was suffering from depression, fits of anger, irritability, insomnia, headaches, chest pains, tension and anxiety. 28. On 5 November 2003 the applicant was examined by prison doctor N., who noted his complaints of haemoptysis, hoarseness and a weakened swallowing reflex. The applicant was also observed to suffer increased pallor and significant weight loss. It appears that these symptoms continued from that day on. 29. On 10 January 2004 the applicant was examined by prison doctor N., who noted his complaints of skin rash and itching and shortness of breath, which were apparently caused by emotional stress. Medication was prescribed. 30. On 20 March 2004 the applicant complained to prison doctor N. of asthenia, hoarseness and a cough which turned into asphyxia. 31. The applicant alleges that on or around 27 April 2004 he was informed that he was going to be transferred from the detention facility’s medical unit to an ordinary cell. The applicant refused to be transferred, referring to his poor health, so he was moved to a punishment cell for three days. On the first night in the punishment cell he was not given blankets or bed linen. On the second night the applicant’s health deteriorated and he experienced laboured breathing, asphyxia attacks and high blood pressure. The applicant asked the guard to call the feldsher (doctor’s assistant). When the feldsher arrived, he was unable to enter the punishment cell because it was locked and the guard did not have the key. It took half an hour to find the key after the feldsher protested. On the morning of the third day the applicant was transferred back to the medical unit. 32. On 20 May 2004 the applicant’s health deteriorated. According to his medical card, his allergy worsened at night and he fell into a collaptoid state. The applicant complained of a cough, itchy skin and nose, shortness of breath, asphyxia attacks, and swelling of the face and lips. 33. On 17 July 2004 a cardiologist was invited to examine the applicant, who complained of severe chest pain, headache and shortness of breath. His blood pressure rose to 180/100. 34. It appears that from August 2004 to January 2005 the applicant continued to show all of the above symptoms at regular medical check‑ups. 35. On 14 January and 23 February 2005 an ambulance was called as the applicant showed symptoms of stenocardia and hypertension. His blood pressure rose to 160/100. 36. On 27 January 2005 the applicant was examined by a specialist and was advised, inter alia, to undergo an endoscopic examination of the throat and biopsy of the tumour. 37. By a letter of 4 February 2005 the acting chief of Nubarashen detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed the District Court that the applicant had made numerous complaints about his health, including asthenia, loss of weight, voice hoarsening and haemoptysis. After an examination by specialists of the Ministry of Health, the applicant was diagnosed as having a throat tumour. The applicant therefore needed to be examined in a specialised clinic of the Ministry of Health. 38. On an unspecified date in April 2005 the applicant was examined by an external doctor who noted that, in order to reach a final diagnosis concerning the applicant’s throat tumour, he needed to undergo computer tomography or a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. 39. On 8 April 2005 prison doctor N. informed the District Court that the applicant was unable to participate in the hearing to take place on that date because he was suffering from Quincke’s oedema. 40. The Government alleged, which the applicant disputed, that in April 2005 the doctor suggested that the applicant be transferred to a specialised establishment for treatment, but the applicant refused. 41. On an unspecified date in May 2005 the applicant experienced a rash, skin and nose itch, cough and laboured breathing followed by asphyxia and loss of consciousness. His face and lips were swollen. An ambulance was called and first aid was provided. The diagnosis of Quincke’s oedema, pollinosis and an atypical form of bronchial asthma was confirmed. 42. On 16 May 2005 the applicant was provided with first aid after showing the following symptoms: severe headaches, dizziness, chest pain, shortness of breath and a disruption in coordination of movements. He further experienced persistent dizziness, facial swelling and excessive sweating. The applicant was diagnosed with hypertensive crisis and an acute disturbance of cerebral blood circulation of the vertebrobasilar area. 43. By a letter of 9 June 2005 the chief of Nubarashen detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed the District Court that the applicant had recently been showing symptoms of hoarseness, haemoptysis and asthenia, and that it was impossible to conduct a proper examination at the detention facility’s medical unit. They requested the court to allow the applicant’s transfer to the Armenia Medical Centre in order to carry out a specialised examination, to clarify the diagnosis and to decide on further treatment. The District Court granted this permission. 44. On 10 June 2005 the applicant was examined by an otolaryngologist at the Armenia Medical Centre. A tumour on the vocal cords was diagnosed and he was advised to undergo surgical treatment and a biopsy of the tumour was recommended. 45. By a letter of 20 December 2005 the acting chief of Nubarashen detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant had been admitted for in-patient treatment at the detention facility’s medical unit with the following complaints: laboured breathing, asphyxia, haemoptysis, voice hoarsening, headache, dizziness and frequent loss of consciousness. Following a number of examinations the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from a throat tumour of unknown nature, allergy of unknown aetiology, Quincke’s oedema and fits of anaphylactic shock. According to the conclusions reached by the specialists of the Ministry of Health, the applicant needed to undergo specialised instrumental and histological examinations and surgery. Recently the fits of anaphylactic shock and loss of consciousness had become more frequent. The applicant was under permanent medical surveillance and was receiving symptomatic treatment. 46. By a letter of 22 December 2005 the acting chief of Nubarashen detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed the applicant’s lawyer that it was not possible to carry out the required examinations and surgery for the applicant at the detention facility’s medical unit. 47. On 23 December 2005 the applicant’s lawyer filed an application with the Court of Appeal, requesting that the applicant be released for health reasons. Copies of the letters of 20 and 22 December 2005 were attached to this application. The applicant alleges that the Court of Appeal included this application in the case file without ruling on it. 48. At the hearing of 26 January 2006 the applicant’s lawyer filed another application similar to that of 23 December 2005. She further requested the court to summon the applicant’s prison doctor. A copy of the applicant’s medical record was attached to this application. It appears that the Court of Appeal decided to postpone the examination of this application in order to establish “certain essential circumstances”. The court further requested the applicant’s lawyer to submit a certified copy of the applicant’s medical record. 49. At the hearing of 27 January 2006 the applicant announced that he was unable to testify because of his inability to speak and that he would testify in writing. He requested the court to release him because of his poor health. It appears that the Court of Appeal again decided to postpone the examination of this request in order to establish certain essential circumstances. 50. At the hearing of 31 January 2006 prison doctor N. was examined in court. The doctor, at the outset, presented details of the diseases suffered by the applicant and the dynamics of their development. He further submitted that all possible treatment had been prescribed but, despite occasional improvements, the applicant’s condition continued to deteriorate. The anti‑allergy treatment had yielded no results. The applicant had been examined on numerous occasions by otolaryngology and oncology specialists who had unanimously concluded that the applicant needed examination and treatment in a specialised clinic. There was no possibility to carry out such treatment at the detention facility’s medical unit, so the applicant received symptomatic treatment. Shortness of breath and asphyxia attacks had become more frequent in December 2005 and January 2006 and were accompanied by coughing and haemoptysis leading to loss of consciousness. The applicant had been resuscitated on several occasions but the growth of the tumour could result in respiratory obstruction causing the applicant’s death, which could occur in a matter of 3 to 4 minutes. Doctor N. recommended the applicant’s immediate transfer to a specialised clinic in order to eliminate the risk of death. He further stated that not only Nubarashen detention facility’s medical unit but the entire penitentiary system lacked the necessary specialists and equipment to carry out a full‑scale examination and treatment of the applicant. 51. At the same hearing the applicant’s lawyer filed an application requesting the applicant’s release, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. She further requested the court to examine the previously filed applications concerning the applicant’s state of health. It appears that the Court of Appeal again decided to postpone the examination of these applications, stating that the information at its disposal was not sufficient to resolve the question of detention. 52. It appears that during that period the applicant refused to be transferred to a specialised clinic. He alleged that his refusal was motivated by the fact that no assurances had been given to him that the required surgery would actually be performed, since another transfer to an outside clinic without such surgery would have been useless and would only have aggravated his condition. 53. On 6 February 2006 the applicant was transferred to the otolaryngology department of the Armenia Medical Centre because of a drastic deterioration in his health. The applicant underwent another examination and was diagnosed with chronic laryngotracheitis and malignisation of the tumour. An urgent in-patient examination and surgical treatment in a specialised clinic were recommended. 54. At the hearing of 8 February 2006 the applicant was unable to finish his testimony because of his inability to speak and the hearing was adjourned. 55. By a letter of 9 February 2006 the chief of Nubarashen detention facility informed the head of the Criminal Executive Department of the Ministry of Justice that, based on the results of the relevant medical examinations, the conclusions of specialists and the progressive nature of the applicant’s disease, he needed to undergo urgent surgery in a specialised clinic, as the tumour was growing and could cause respiratory obstruction. 56. At the hearing of 15 February 2006 the applicant’s lawyer filed another application with the Court of Appeal seeking to have the applicant released because of his poor health. A certified copy of the applicant’s medical record and a copy of the results of the examination of 6 February 2006 were attached to this application. The Court of Appeal dismissed this application on the ground that the examination of the case was in its final stage and there were no relevant documents, such as an expert opinion, justifying the need to carry out the applicant’s urgent examination and treatment in a specialised clinic. 57. By a letter of 27 February 2006 the chief of Nubarashen detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed the Court of Appeal that the applicant had been examined by specialists at the Armenia Medical Centre and it had been established that his throat tumour had grown and that he was in need of urgent surgery. They requested the applicant’s transfer to the Medical Centre for surgery. The Court of Appeal granted this request. 58. On 2 March 2006 the head of the detention facility’s medical unit informed the Court of Appeal that the applicant was unable to participate in the hearing to take place on that date because he was suffering from fits of asphyxia. 59. On 4 March 2006 the applicant was transferred to the Armenia Medical Centre. He was diagnosed as having “a vocal cord tumour (C-R?), first degree stenosis and, as accompanying pathologies, nasal septum deviation and chronic hypertrophic rhinitis”. The applicant was advised to undergo two operations. The first operation was scheduled for 14 March 2006 but was postponed upon the applicant’s request, as he wished to participate in a court hearing in his case. 60. On 18 March 2006 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist who diagnosed him as suffering from reactive depression accompanied by a phobic syndrome. It appears that the applicant showed symptoms of suicidal thoughts. Administration of tranquillisers was recommended. 61. On 23 March 2006 the applicant underwent his first operation. Partial excision of the mucous membrane of the nasal septum and a double‑sided inferior and right-side medial conchotomy were performed. The doctors noted that the applicant’s mental condition prevented the second operation being carried out and advised that it be performed after the applicant’s general condition had stabilised. 62. On 3 April 2006 the applicant was again examined by a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him as suffering from a severe form of depression without mental symptoms. The psychiatrist recommended that treatment be continued and the applicant be kept under strict supervision to prevent possible suicide attempts. 63. On 5 April 2006 the applicant’s lawyer filed an application with the Court of Appeal requesting the applicant’s release on, inter alia, health grounds. The applicant alleges that the Court of Appeal postponed the examination of this request without giving any reasons. 64. On 25 April 2006 the applicant underwent his second operation which involved the removal of polyps on the vocal cords. The operation went smoothly but complications, including inflammation of the vocal cords, adhesions and haemorrhage, occurred in the post-operative period. 65. On 26 May 2006 the applicant’s condition had improved, and he was discharged from the Armenia Medical Centre and transferred back to the detention facility’s medical unit. 66. On 23 June 2006 the applicant was released on parole.

{'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 1961, 1964 and 1988 respectively. The first and second applicants appear to have been serving prison sentences in Kosh and Abovyan penitentiary institutions at the time of submission of their application. The third applicant lives in the town of Vardenis, Armenia. 6. The first and second applicants are husband and wife. The third applicant is their daughter. At the material time they resided in Vardenis, in the Gegharkunik Region of Armenia. 7. On 8 June 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted on account of the murder of a local girl who was apparently the third applicant’s classmate and whose body was found not far from the applicants’ home. 8. The first applicant alleges that on the same date he was taken to the Vardenis Police Department where he was unlawfully kept without his arrest being formally recorded. At the police department he was subjected to continual beatings by police officers in an attempt to coerce him to confess to the above-mentioned murder. 9. On 24 June 2004 the Gegharkunik Regional Court found the first applicant guilty under Section 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences of maliciously disobeying lawful orders of police officers and sentenced him to fifteen days’ imprisonment. The first applicant was found to have used foul language in the street and to have disobeyed the police officers who tried to call him to order. 10. The first applicant alleges that the above decision was a fake and that in reality he was kept at the police department during that entire period in connection with the above murder. The administrative penalty imposed on him was simply used as a means to legitimise his continued unlawful deprivation of liberty. 11. The second and third applicants allege that from 8 June 2004 onwards they were also under constant pressure from the local law‑enforcement officers, being frequently taken to the police department and pressurised and coerced to confess to the murder or to incriminate each other. 12. On 30 June 2004 the second applicant, together with a number of other residents of Vardenis, filed a complaint with the General Prosecutor and the Chief of the Armenian Police, alleging that the first applicant had been unlawfully detained since 8 June 2004 in connection with the above murder and that the applicants’ family had been terrorised by the local law-enforcement officers. They further alleged that the second applicant had been invited to the Vardenis Police Department where she was ordered by the Chief of Department, Vi.H., to admit that the first applicant had wanted to rape the victim and that she, having found out about it, had killed the girl out of jealousy. They alleged that the second applicant had been beaten but had refused to confess. 13. The second applicant alleges that on 8 July 2004 she was invited to the Vardenis Police Department where Chief of Department Vi.H. ordered her to testify against the first applicant. When she refused to do so, she was beaten by V.H. and a number of other law-enforcement officers, including the deputy of the criminal investigation unit, N.H., two officers of the criminal investigation unit, K.N. and K.M., and the Gegharkunik Regional Deputy Prosecutor, F.B. She was beaten on her feet with a baton and when she fainted the police officers would bring her back to consciousness and continue the beating. Thereafter the police officers brought the third applicant to the police department and locked her up in a nearby, dark room infested with rats. They threatened the second applicant that they would rape the third applicant if she refused to confess, after which she confessed to the murder. It appears that the first applicant also confessed to having assisted the second applicant in the murder. 14. The third applicant alleges that she was taken to the police department on numerous occasions, frequently at late hours, where she was humiliated by the police officers, threatened with rape and pressured to admit that it was the second applicant who had committed the murder and that the motive was the strained relationship between her and the victim. She further alleges that she saw both her father and her mother at the police department and that they bore signs of ill-treatment. 15. On 9 July 2004 the first and second applicants were formally arrested in connection with the above-mentioned murder. It appears that a confrontation was held between the second and third applicants, during which the second applicant admitted having committed the murder and stated that the third applicant had helped her to dispose of the body. 16. On the same date the first and second applicants refused the services of a lawyer who had been invited to participate in the case by the investigator. They allege that they did so because they did not trust the investigator’s choice. It appears that the applicants did not request that another lawyer be appointed instead. 17. The third applicant alleges that on the night from 9 to 10 July 2004 she was kept at Vardenis Police Department in an individual cell which had no lights and was infested with mice. 18. On 10 July 2004 the second applicant participated in an investigative measure at the scene of the crime which was recorded on film. 19. On the same date from 9.20 to 10 p.m. the third applicant was questioned as a witness by Gegharkunik Regional Deputy Prosecutor, F.B. She stated that the second applicant had made false statements during the confrontation, which must have been the result of her being drugged. She further stated that the second applicant had not committed the murder and that her behaviour, including her confession and accusations, was strange. 20. The third applicant alleges that following this interview she was subjected to beatings by the Gegharkunik Regional Deputy Prosecutor F.B. and two other officers of the prosecutor’s office who pulled her hair and then threw her on the floor and started kicking her. On 11 July 2004 the police officers took her home, where she lay in bed motionless for several days until her uncle visited her on 13 July 2004 and made arrangements to have her transferred to Yerevan for a medical examination. 21. On 12 July 2004 the first and second applicants were formally charged with murder. 22. On the same date the Gegharkunik Regional Court held a hearing in the first and second applicants’ presence, at which it examined and granted the application seeking to have them detained. Deputy Regional Prosecutor F.B. was present at this hearing. The second applicant was asked by the judge whether she had confessed voluntarily to the murder or had been coerced to do so, to which she replied that no coercion or intimidation had been applied to her during the preliminary investigation and that the confession had been made voluntarily. 23. On 14 July 2004 the second applicant was transferred from the Vardenis Police Department to the Avobyan detention facility. Upon her admission to the detention facility the second applicant underwent a medical examination and was found to have “bruised feet due to blood vessels being broken as a result of swelling”. It was further recorded that she complained of high blood pressure, pain in the legs and swollen feet. 24. On the same date the first applicant was transferred to the Kosh detention facility. 25. On 16 July 2004 the third applicant underwent a medical examination at the Armenia Medical Centre in Yerevan and was found to have: “Concussion (?), bruising of soft tissues of the head [...], and bruising of soft tissues in the back area and of the left arm...” 26. On 23 August 2004 the criminal proceedings in their part concerning the third applicant were terminated for lack of evidence of her involvement in the crime. 27. On 25 August 2004 the first and second applicants requested that a state-appointed lawyer, K., be engaged in the case. The applicants allege that on the same date lawyer K. requested that the first and second applicants be questioned in his presence, but this request was refused. 28. On 26 August 2004 the investigation was completed and the first and second applicants were granted access to the case file. On the same date both applicants and their lawyer familiarised themselves with the materials of the case, which consisted of four volumes. 29. On 31 August 2004 the Gegharkunik Regional Prosecutor approved the indictment and the case was transmitted to the Gegharkunik Regional Court for examination on the merits. In the proceedings before the Regional Court the first and second applicants denied their guilt and stated that their confession statements had been made as a result of ill-treatment. 30. The first and second applicants allege that the hearings at the Regional Court were conducted in an atmosphere of constant disorder, including real threats and verbal and physical abuse towards them and their lawyer by a group of 25 to 30 people, composed of the victim’s relatives and their friends. 31. In November 2004 lawyer S. of the Helsinki Association NGO was engaged in the case by the first and second applicants, replacing lawyer K. According to the applicants, the hearings continued in the same manner. 32. On 21 January 2005 the President of the Gegharkunik Regional Court informed the head of the bar association in writing that lawyer S. had failed to appear at the hearing of 19 January 2005 without prior notice. The hearing was therefore adjourned until 25 January 2005. Lawyer S. was notified of this but informed the court by telephone that she refused to participate. The President requested in his letter that measures be taken to ensure her participation or else the court would have to continue the proceedings without her. 33. On 25 January 2005 lawyer S. applied to the Minister of Justice, complaining about the disorder during the court hearings. She alleged that the applicants’ previous lawyer, K., had been beaten by the victim’s relatives, which precluded his further participation in the case, and that she feared the same would happen to her. She further alleged that the court took no action to prevent the disorder and requested that the case be examined in a different court. 34. The first and second applicants allege that lawyer S. was forced to miss some of the hearings because of fears for her safety. 35. On 4 February 2005 the Regional Court found the first and second applicants guilty of murder and sentenced them to nine and fourteen years’ imprisonment respectively. In doing so, the Regional Court examined and dismissed the first and second applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment on the following grounds: (a) these allegations had been examined by the Gegharkunik Regional Prosecutor’s Office and had been found to be unsubstantiated (see paragraph 60 below); (b) the first and second applicants, at various stages of the proceedings, had made contradictory statements in connection with these allegations; (c) the second applicant, having indicated the alleged perpetrators, nevertheless refused to have a confrontation with them during the court proceedings; (d) on 10 July 2004 the second applicant had participated in an investigative measure at the scene of the crime which was recorded on film and was examined in court: she walked freely and bore no signs of ill‑treatment; (e) the first and second applicants admitted their guilt and made no allegations of ill-treatment at the court hearing of 12 July 2004, at which the question of their detention was determined (see paragraph 22 above); (f) on 13 July 2004 the first and second applicants were filmed for a police television show but made no allegations of ill-treatment to the members of the crew; (g) when questioned on 14 July 2004 the second applicant refused to comment on the complaints which she had lodged with various authorities prior to her arrest, stating that those had been lodged before her arrest and that the true statements were those which she had made after her arrest; (h) on 14 July 2004 the first and second applicants were transferred to detention facilities and no signs of ill-treatment were recorded at the time of their admission; (i) the second applicant raised the allegations of ill-treatment for the first time only on 21 August 2004, more than forty days after her arrest; (j) the second applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been rebutted by the statements made in court by the officer of the criminal investigation unit of the Vardenis Police Department, K.M., who had been questioned as a witness. 36. On 18 February 2005 lawyer S. lodged an appeal. In her appeal she argued that the applicants had been deprived of effective legal assistance because from 14 December 2004 she had not been able to participate in the hearings because of the constant disorder in the courtroom. She further argued that the applicants’ conviction had been based on coerced confession statements. It appears that the applicants also lodged appeals in which they, inter alia, denied their guilt and stated that their confession statements had been made as a result of ill-treatment. 37. On 22 March 2005 the examination of the case commenced at the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal. According to the first and second applicants, the hearings before the Court of Appeal were conducted in the same manner as before the Regional Court. 38. At the hearing on 22 June 2005 a scuffle broke out between the victim’s and the applicants’ relatives. It appears that the victim’s relatives were removed from the courtroom and the hearing resumed. The hearing was then adjourned until 27 June 2005 in order for lawyer S. to have time to prepare her final pleading. 39. On 24 June 2005 the head of the Helsinki Association submitted the text of lawyer S.’s final pleading to the Court of Appeal by post, claiming that this was necessary in order to ensure the lawyer’s personal and physical safety. He alleged that at the hearing of 22 June 2005 the victim’s relatives had attacked the lawyer. Some of the defendants’ relatives had also been attacked and beaten. He further alleged that during the hearings in both the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal there had been constant threats against the lawyer, but her requests to have her security ensured and the threats recorded in the transcripts had been ignored by the courts. 40. On 27 June 2005 the hearing was adjourned until 1 July 2005 because of lawyer S.’s absence. In doing so, the Court of Appeal noted the lawyer’s concerns about her security and refusal to participate because of fears for her safety. 41. On the same date the presiding judge addressed a letter to the head of the bar association, with a copy to lawyer S., stating that the hearing had been adjourned and asking that her future appearance be ensured. The letter further stated that appropriate measures had been taken to ensure the safety of the participants in the trial. 42. On 29 June 2005 lawyer S. complained to the police about the events of 22 June 2005, alleging that she had been working in such conditions for the last six to seven months and that she was not able to attend the hearing of 27 June 2005 because of fears for her safety. 43. On 1 July 2005 the Court of Appeal held a hearing. Lawyer S. did not appear. According to the record of the hearing, the court noted lawyer S.’s absence and stated that both the lawyer and the bar association had been informed that the court had taken all possible measures to secure the safety of those participating in the trial and had therefore been asked to ensure the lawyer’s presence. The second applicant stated that she had met with lawyer S. at the detention centre and they had agreed that the lawyer would not appear in court. She therefore wished to dispense with the lawyer’s services and did not wish to have another lawyer. The first applicant similarly stated that he wished the proceedings to continue without the lawyer and that he did not wish to have another lawyer. The court then decided to return lawyer S.’s final pleading on the ground that she no longer represented the first and second applicants. 44. The applicants allege that the record of the court hearing of 1 July 2005 contains inaccurate statements and does not correspond to reality. Their lawyer was refused, at a later stage, a copy of this record because she was allegedly no longer authorised to represent them and was therefore unable to comment on its accuracy. 45. On 2 July 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the first and second applicants’ conviction. The Court of Appeal dismissed their allegations of ill-treatment on the same grounds as the Regional Court adding also that, according to a court-ordered expert medical opinion, the first applicant bore no signs of injury. 46. On 8 July 2005 lawyer S. visited the second applicant at the detention facility. 47. On 11 July 2005 lawyer S. lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation. In her appeal she argued that the applicants had been ill-treated and their conviction was based on coerced statements. She further argued that the applicants had been deprived of effective legal assistance and an objective examination of their case, because of an atmosphere of constant terror reigning in the courtroom. The Court of Appeal had failed to ensure order and it had been impossible to examine evidence and to submit new evidence in an objective and fair manner because of the repeated scuffles and stressful atmosphere. The conflicts, threats of violence, verbal abuse and scuffles had worsened during the last three hearings in the Court of Appeal. The court, however, had failed to take any measures, which precluded her further participation and even made it impossible to make her final pleading which, as a result, she had been forced to submit by post. The court’s inactivity only encouraged further aggressive behaviour by the victim’s relatives. The applicants’ previous lawyer K. had also been unable to participate in the hearings, which had consequently been held in October 2004 in his absence. 48. On an unspecified date the second applicant also lodged an appeal on points of law. It appears that in her appeal she argued that she had confessed to the crime as a result of beatings, torture and threats. She further complained that the hearings before the Court of Appeal had been held without a lawyer. 49. On 14 July 2005 lawyer S. received a letter from the presiding judge dated 1 July 2005 informing her that the first and second applicants had dispensed with her services because of her failure to appear at the hearings of 27 June and 1 July 2005 and returning the text of her final pleading. 50. On 8 August 2005 lawyer S. lodged a supplement to her appeal of 11 July 2005, expressing surprise about the fact that the text of her final pleading had been returned to her and about the grounds on which it had been returned. She alleged that these actions pursued the aim of concealing the violation of the first and second applicants’ right to defence and the failure to ensure order during the court hearings. She requested that the text of her final pleading be included in the case file. She further requested that protective measures be taken at the hearing before the Court of Cassation in order for her to be able to participate, taking into account the manner in which the hearings had been conducted before the courts of first and second instance. 51. On 12 August 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the second applicant’s appeal. As regards the allegations of ill-treatment, the Court of Cassation stated that these had been thoroughly examined by the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal and had been rightly found to be unsubstantiated. As regards the alleged absence of a lawyer, the court considered these allegations to be ill-founded, finding on the basis of the materials of the case file that the lawyer had been involved in the examination of the case at the Court of Appeal from day one, namely 22 March 2005. As it appeared from the record of the hearing of 1 July 2005, the second applicant later dispensed with the lawyer’s services because of the latter’s failure to appear at the hearings of 27 June and 1 July 2005. Taking this into account, as well as the fact that the second applicant did not wish to have another lawyer, the Court of Appeal accepted this and informed the lawyer in a letter. 52. As to lawyer S.’s appeal, the Court of Cassation left this appeal unexamined on the ground that the first and second applicants had dispensed with her services and she was no longer authorised to bring an appeal on their behalf pursuant to Section 403 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 53. On 21 July 2004 the third applicant lodged a complaint with the Armenian Ombudsman. She stated, inter alia, that on 10 July 2004 she had been roughly pushed into a car and taken by Assistant Prosecutor Va.H. and another law enforcement official to Chief Vi.H.’s office. There Va.H. had started to force her to smoke a cigarette, while continually hitting her on the head with his hand and a bottle, saying that it was she who had committed the murder. When she disagreed, they had proceeded to beat her. At that moment Deputy Regional Prosecutor F.B. had entered the office and slapped her with such force that her teeth hurt. One of the officers said “Bend down, bitch” and pushed her to the floor, then F.B., Va.H. and Investigator G.H. started kicking her like a ball. Va.H. ordered her to undress, saying that he had invited a doctor to check if she was still a virgin. When she refused, he pulled off her jacket. They wanted to undress her but she resisted. Then they brought in her mother and beat her, after which they told her to watch how they would murder her daughter, unless they agreed to confess. Then they let her go but only on the condition that she would not tell anyone that she had been beaten. The next morning she was again taken to the police department, where F.B. started hitting her arms and forcing her to write a confession. Then they brought her mother again and made them sit facing each other. They started beating her mother and ordered her to persuade her daughter to confess. Her mother begged her to do so, adding that she would not recognise her father if she saw him, he was in such a bad state, and that it was not shameful to lie after all the ill-treatment they had endured. She decided to cooperate eventually because of her mother’s pleas. 54. On 2 August 2004 the second applicant lodged a similar complaint with the General Prosecutor of Armenia. She stated, inter alia, that on 9 July 2004 she had been taken into custody at the Vardenis Police Department by the Chief of Department Vi.H. and Regional Prosecutor F.B. There she had been beaten by Vi.H. and five other police officers in connection with the murder. Her husband had been kept at the police department for about a month, where he had been beaten and his fingernails had been pulled in order to coerce him to confess, which he had refused to do. The same beating and violence had been inflicted on her and her daughter. For three days Chief of Police Department Vi.H. had beaten her and made her sit in water, after which she had agreed to write the confession dictated to her by Vardenis Investigator G.H. and Regional Prosecutor F.B. The second applicant added that she was prepared to repeat her allegations in court in the presence of the perpetrators. 55. On 10 August 2004 the Ombudsman forwarded the third applicant’s complaint to the General Prosecutor, together with a copy of the medical opinion of the Armenia Medical Centre of 16 July 2004 (see paragraph 25 above). 56. The above complaints were forwarded by the General Prosecutor to the Gegharkunik Regional Prosecutor’s Office for examination. 57. On 19, 25, 26 and 31 August 2004 the Senior Assistant to the Gegharkunik Regional Prosecutor, Y.I. (hereby Senior Assistant Y.I.), took statements from the following law enforcement officers in connection with the allegations of ill-treatment: Gegharkunik Regional Deputy Prosecutor F.B, Assistant to the Regional Prosecutor Va.H., Investigator of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office G.H., Chief of the Vardenis Police Department Vi.H., Head of the Criminal Investigations Unit at the Vardenis Police Department S.M., two officers of that unit Y.M. and K.M., and chief of the temporary detention cell at the police department, V.A. They were asked to provide an account of the contested events. In reply to Y.I.’s request to comment on the second and third applicants’ allegations of ill‑treatment addressed to some of those questioned, they denied having inflicted any violence on the second and third applicants, claiming that the latter had made false statements. 58. On 30 August 2004 Senior Assistant Y.I. took a statement from the second applicant. She stated that on 9 July 2004 she had been taken by Vi.H. and F.B. to the police department where she had been kept for five days and beaten by Vi.H. and police officers S.M., Y.M., K.M. and V.A. with rubber batons. She had been threatened with a champagne bottle and had been seated on what she believed to be an electric chair. They had demanded that she confess to the murder, otherwise the same would happen to her daughter, husband and other family members. She had then written a confession which was dictated to her. Furthermore, she had met her husband – who had already been in police custody for a month – at a confrontation. His fingernails had been pulled, he had lost weight, and his clothes were stained and torn. When she had asked him what had happened, he had started crying and said that for about a month he had been deprived of sleep and repeatedly beaten. In the meantime her daughter was being beaten in a nearby office. She had not mentioned any of this to the judge at the detention hearing because she had been beaten and for fear that the ill‑treatment would continue. 59. On the same date the chief of Abovyan detention facility and the head of its medical unit – apparently upon the inquiry of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office – issued a certificate containing the results of the second applicant’s medical examination of 14 July 2004 (see paragraph 23 above). 60. On 31 August 2004 Senior Assistant Y.I. decided to refuse the institution of criminal proceedings on the basis of the second and third applicants’ complaints. This decision stated that: “[The second and third applicants’ complaints of 21 July and 2 August 2004 addressed to the Ombudsman and the General Prosecutor’s Office] have been transferred by the General Prosecutor’s Office to the Gegharkunik Regional Prosecutor’s Office for examination... The Regional Prosecutor’s Office has examined the above complaints, has verified in detail the presented facts, and has taken statements from the employees of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office and Vardenis Police Department mentioned in those complaints and involved in the criminal case. The allegations raised in [the second and third applicants’ complaints] concerning having been beaten or subjected to any other kind of violence have been rebutted. The circumstances have been confirmed by the statements of Regional Deputy Prosecutor [F.B.], Assistant Prosecutor [Va.H.], Investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office [G.H.], Chief of the Vardenis Police Department [Vi.H.], Head of the Criminal Investigations Unit at the said department [S.M.], two operatives of the said unit, [Y.M. and K.M.], and chief of the [temporary detention cell at the police department V.A.]; the certificate of 30 August 2004 of the Abovyan detention facility, according to which [the second applicant] on the date of her admission at [the Abovyan detention facility] (14 July 2004) was examined by a doctor and complained of high blood pressure, pain in her legs and swollen feet. The bruises on [the second applicant’s feet] resulted from swellings which were caused by broken blood vessels. [The first applicant] has not submitted any complaints concerning having been beaten or subjected to any other kind of violence.” 61. The applicants were not informed about this decision. 62. On 8 December 2004 the chief of the Abovyan detention facility and the head of its medical unit addressed a letter to lawyer S., stating that during the medical examination carried out at the time of the second applicant’s admission to the detention facility, namely on 14 July 2004, the second applicant had complained of pain in the legs and swollen feet. The second applicant had been found to have swollen and bruised feet. 63. On 12 December 2004 lawyer S. applied to the General Prosecutor with a request to have criminal proceedings instituted. The lawyer alleged that all three applicants had been ill-treated and coerced to confess at the Vardenis Police Department in June and July 2004. She stated that the perpetrators had been pointed out by the applicants. The lawyer referred to the results of the medical examinations carried out in respect of the second applicant at the Abovyan detention facility on 14 July 2004 and in respect of the third applicant at the Armenia Medical Centre on 16 July 2004. 64. It appears that on 23 December 2004 the General Prosecutor’s Office sent a letter to lawyer S., informing her that the first and second applicants had not been ill-treated by the employees of the Gegharkunik Regional Prosecutor’s Office and the Police Department. 65. On 25 January 2005 lawyer S. re-applied to the General Prosecutor with the same request, claiming that no reply had been received to her previous request of 12 December 2004. 66. On 31 January 2005 the General Prosecutor’s Office sent a letter to lawyer S. with identical content. 67. On an unspecified date lawyer S. contested the actions of the General Prosecutor’s Office, including the two above-mentioned letters, before the courts on behalf of all three applicants. The lawyer complained about the ill-treatment that had been inflicted on the applicants in the period between 8 and 12 July 2004, and indicated the names of the perpetrators, including the Chief of the Vardenis Police Department, Vi.H. and the police officers of that department, Y.M., K.M. and V.A. She alleged that the Regional Prosecutor and the investigative team headed by him were aware of these acts but showed indifference and even facilitated the coercion to obtain prosecution evidence. 68. On 25 March 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan left the lawyer’s appeal without examination. The District Court found that a decision had been adopted on 31 August 2004 whereby the institution of criminal proceedings had been refused. According to the prescribed procedure, this decision could be contested before a higher prosecutor or the court of appeal. 69. On 28 March 2005 the third applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. She alleged, inter alia, that she and the other two applicants had been subjected to continual ill-treatment in June and July 2004. She herself had been kept at the Vardenis Police Department on the night from 9 to 10 July 2004 and beaten by the employees of the Gegharkunik Regional Prosecutor’s Office, F.B., Va.H., G.H. and G.H. The Regional Prosecutor, A.M., and Chief of Police Department Vi.H. had been aware of this. She had injuries on her head, face and back and had to stay in bed for several days. Only after her uncle came to visit her upon his return from Russia could she be transferred to Yerevan for a medical examination. The third applicant further stated that she had noticed signs of ill-treatment on her mother, such as bruised hands, swollen face and difficulty walking, during the confrontation which had been held between them. 70. On the same date lawyer S. lodged an appeal with the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal against the decision of 31 August 2004 on behalf of the first and second applicants. In her appeal she argued, inter alia, that neither she nor the applicants had ever been informed about this decision and they had become aware of it only at the hearing before the District Court on 25 March 2005. As regards the substance of this decision, it was adopted by persons who had an interest in the outcome of the case and was based on statements of the alleged perpetrators which lacked credibility. The applicants, however, had never been questioned in connection with their allegations. The lawyer further referred to the numerous complaints lodged by the second and third applicants from June to August 2004 and the results of their medical examinations of 14 and 16 July 2004. 71. On 11 May 2005 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal examined jointly both issues and decided to dismiss the appeal against the decision of 25 March 2005 and not to examine the appeal against the decision of 31 August 2004 on the ground that it had been lodged outside the one month time-limit for appeal. 72. On 25 May 2005 lawyer S. lodged an appeal against this decision on behalf of the applicants. 73. On 22 July 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed this decision and remitted the case for a new examination on the ground that the Court of Appeal had failed to clarify whether the decision of 31 August 2004 had been duly and timely served on the applicants. 74. On 7 September 2005 the Court of Appeal decided to quash the decision of 25 March 2005 and to reserve a right to the defence to contest the decision of 31 August 2004, since there was no evidence to show that a copy of that decision had been duly served on the applicants prior to their becoming aware of it in March 2005. 75. On 23 September 2005 lawyer S. lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal against the decision of 31 August 2004 on behalf of the applicants. 76. On 10 November 2005 the Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the appeal. In doing so, the court first confirmed the findings made in that decision and then added that the complaints about ill-treatment had already been examined and dismissed by the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation in the course of the criminal proceedings against the first and second 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'}

5. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb. 6. On 25 April 1992 the applicant married Ms Z.J. 7. On 9 October 1993 Z.J. gave birth to their son I.R. 8. In December 1993 Z.J., together with their son, moved out of the flat in which she had lived with the applicant and went to live with her parents. After that she started avoiding contact with the applicant. Prior to the institution of the divorce and custody proceedings in February 1996 (see paragraphs 9-30 below) the applicant saw his son only twice, in January 1994 and in 1995 during Easter holidays. The applicant and Z.J. officially divorced by a court judgment to that effect on 12 February 2002 (see paragraphs 21-22 below). 9. On 19 February 1996 Z.J. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking divorce, custody of, and the maintenance for their son. 10. On 22 April 1997 the court asked the Zagreb Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Zagreb, hereafter “the local social welfare centre”) to prepare a report on the family situation in the Ribić family and submit its recommendation as to whom of the parents custody of their son should be awarded. 11. The Government submitted that the applicant had ignored the local social welfare centre’s calls to attend interviews necessary for the preparation of the report by not collecting the centre’s letters to that effect from the post office. The applicant denied that allegation, noted that the Government had not substantiated it by relevant documents and invited them to do so. He further submitted that while it was true that in the period between 1993 and 2003 he had worked in Ljubljana (Slovenia) on weekdays, he had been staying in Zagreb every weekend. If there had been any problem with the service of the local social welfare centre’s correspondence to him, the centre should have contacted the advocate who had represented him in the civil proceedings in question. 12. On 7 July 1997 the applicant’s and Z.J.’ legal representatives agreed to temporarily suspend the proceedings (mirovanje postupka) for a period of three months with a view to reaching an amicable solution, which however did not materialise. 13. Thus, in the further course of the proceedings, on 23 January 1998, the court decided to obtain information on the parties’ income, and scheduled the next hearing for 20 April 1998 with a view to hearing the parties. 14. However, the hearing scheduled for 20 April 1998 was adjourned because the applicant did not attend it. 15. At the hearing held on 22 May 1998 the court again decided to hear the parties and invited Z.J. to provide information on her income, something the applicant had already done. 16. At that hearing and in his written submission of 9 March 1999 the applicant asked the court to issue a provisional measure whereby it would provisionally regulate his contacts with his son. According to the information submitted by the parties, the court did not decide on the applicant’s motion, apparently because under the legislation in force at the material time interim contact orders were in the exclusive jurisdiction of the social welfare centres as administrative authorities (see paragraph 81 below). 17. At the hearing held on 9 October 1998 the court heard the parties and decided to obtain an opinion from an expert in psychiatry with a view to deciding on custody and access rights. However, since the applicant and Z.J. did not advance the costs of the expert opinion until seven months later, the case-file was not sent to the appointed expert institution before 11 June 1999. 18. In the course of the preparation of the expert opinion, on 26 February 2000 the applicant met with his son, for the first time since Easter of 1995 (see paragraph 8 above). On the same date the applicant and Z.J. signed an agreement regarding the contact schedule they would propose to the court. In particular, it was agreed to propose to the court that the contacts between the applicant and his son take place in the presence of both parents for two hours on the premises specified by the local social welfare centre and in the presence of a child-welfare professional designated by the centre. In the first three months, the contacts were to take place twice a month, and thereafter every week. After a year the local social welfare centre were to assess the situation and propose further arrangements. 19. By 3 April 2000 the designated expert institution had finalised the expert opinion, which was received by the court 11 days later. The experts’ recommendation was in line with the parties’ agreement of 26 February 2000, which they endorsed. The experts particularly emphasised the need for the contacts between the applicant and his son to take place in the presence of Z.J. and a child-welfare professional designated by the local social welfare centre. 20. Since both parties objected to the expert opinion, the court held three more hearings, on 25 May and 14 and 28 September 2001 during which the court heard the psychiatrist who had prepared it. The court also obtained fresh information on the parties’ income with a view to deciding on the maintenance for their son. 21. On 26 October 2001 the Municipal Court pronounced judgment whereby it: (a) dissolved the marriage between the applicant and Z.J., (b) awarded custody of their son to Z.J., (c) granted the applicant access (contact) rights, and (d) ordered the applicant to regularly pay a certain amount of money as maintenance for his son. The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows: “Contacts between I.R. and his father Zdenko Ribić shall take place twice a month on Saturdays for two hours for the period of two months, and after that once a week on Saturdays in the child’s home in the presence of the mother and a psychologist or social worker. After a year the local social welfare centre may propose changes in the frequency [of contacts]. ... Since both parties repeatedly, by their non-attendance and their failure to advance the costs of the expert opinion, caused hearings to be postponed and thereby protracted the proceedings for several years ... each party should bear their own [litigation] costs.” 22. Following an appeal by both parties, on 12 February 2002 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment in so far as it concerned access rights and maintenance and remitted the case. It upheld the contested judgment in so far as it concerned divorce and custody, which part thereby became final. 23. In the resumed proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Court held hearings on 5 July 2002, and on 27 January, 19 March and 12 July 2003. 24. In addition, on 26 August 2002 the court invited the local social welfare centre to prepare a report and submit its recommendation on the applicant’s contact with his son. In the course of their preparation the expert team of the centre, consisting of a social worker and a psychologist, conducted several joint and separate interviews with the parties. The centre’s experts also contacted the applicant’s son’s school and obtained an opinion on his school performance. 25. On 7 February 2003 the local social welfare centre submitted its report and recommendation to the court. Its expert team recommended that the contacts between the applicant and his son take place every second Saturday for two hours for the period of three months, and after that every Saturday, in the presence of the mother and a child-welfare professional. However, the centre’s experts suggested that the contacts should not take place in the child’s home as it was not a neutral ground and could give rise to conflicts between the applicant on the one side and Z.J. and her parents on the other. Their report indicated that the applicant’s son was very emotionally attached to his mother, that he did not know his father but wanted to meet him. The expert’s opinion also suggested that the centre impose a child-protection measure of supervision of exercise of parental authority focusing on contacts between the applicant and his son, with a view to facilitating those contacts and assisting the parents in improving communication between them (see paragraph 59 below). 26. At the hearing held on 19 March 2003 the court heard the parties. 27. On 4 July 2003 the court rendered a partial judgment whereby it decided on the maintenance for the applicant’s son. At the same time it decided to stay the proceedings in so far they concerned the applicant’s access rights pending the outcome of the concurrent civil proceedings his former wife had instituted against him with a view to depriving him of parental responsibility (see paragraphs 77-78 below). The applicant appealed. 28. On 3 February 2004 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the partial judgment on maintenance and upheld it. At the same time it quashed the first-instance decision to stay the proceedings and remitted the case. It held that the applicant had the right to maintain contact with his son as long as he was not deprived of parental responsibility. 29. In the resumed proceedings, on 23 July 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court adopted a judgment whereby it again granted the applicant access rights and issued a detailed contact schedule. In particular, the court decided that in the first three months the contacts between the applicant and his son were to take place every second Saturday for two hours on the premises of the local social welfare centre and in the presence of the mother and either a psychologist or social worker designated by the centre. In the next three months the contacts were to be arranged in the same manner but every Saturday, and, after another three months, in the same way but in the absence of the mother. After nine months the applicant were to exercise his access rights for four hours every Tuesday and Thursday in those weeks when the applicant’s son had school in the morning, every second weekend, thirty days of summer and seven days of winter holidays, as well as every second official or church holiday. 30. On 12 April 2005 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by Z.J. and upheld the first-instance judgment. The first-instance judgment of 23 July 2004 became final when the second-instance judgment of 12 April 2005 was served on both parties on 29 June 2005. 31. As Z.J. refused to comply with the above judgment of 23 July 2004 and obstructed the exercise of the applicant’s access rights, on 12 May 2005 he applied for enforcement of that judgment before the Zagreb Municipal Court. 32. On 25 August 2005 that court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o ovrsi) whereby it ordered Z.J., at the risk of fine of 3,000 Croatian kunas (HRK), to allow the applicant to exercise his access rights. 33. On 8 November 2005 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by Z.J. and upheld the writ. 34. On 2 December 2005 the local social welfare centre informed the court that Z.J. was not complying with judgment of 23 July 2004 as she had not been bringing the applicant’s son to the scheduled meetings on the centre’s premises where the contacts between him and the applicant were to be arranged. The centre thus asked to court to enforce the judgment through a judicial enforcement officer. 35. On 22 December 2005 the Zagreb Municipal Court issued a decision whereby it fined Z.J. HRK 3,000 for non-compliance with the judgment of 23 July 2004, and again ordered her, at the risk of further fine of HRK 6,000, to do so within fifteen days. Z.J. appealed but on 21 November 2006 the County Court dismissed her appeal. 36. In the meantime, on 29 December 2005, Z.J. asked for postponement of enforcement but the Municipal Court dismissed her motion. 37. Since Z.J. had paid the fine but nevertheless did not comply with the judgment, on 30 November 2006 the Zagreb Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s motion of 27 September 2006 and issued a new writ of execution whereby it ordered a judicial enforcement officer, with the assistance of a pedagogue or a social worker employed with local social welfare centre, and a police officer, to take the applicant’s son from Z.J., or any other person each time the applicant was entitled pursuant to the contact schedule to exercise his access rights, and to return him to her afterwards. Even though the court ordered that the costs of that intervention by the enforcement officer were to be borne by Z.J., it invited the applicant to advance those costs within eight days of the service of the writ. 38. By a decision of 14 February 2007 the Municipal Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the applicant had not advanced the costs. The applicant then first on 7 March 2007 appealed against that decision but, on 29 March 2007 withdrew that appeal and, eventually, on 23 November 2007 withdrew his application for enforcement of 12 May 2005 (see paragraph 31 above). 39. Accordingly, on 4 December 2007 the Zagreb Municipal Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings. (b) Second set of enforcement proceedings 40. Meanwhile, on 23 April 2007 the applicant again applied for enforcement of the above judgment of 23 July 2004 (see paragraph 29 above) before the Zagreb Municipal Court. 41. On 6 December 2007 that court issued a writ of execution identical to the one of 30 November 2006 (see paragraph 37 above). 42. On 24 December 2007 Z.J. appealed against the writ and on 2 January 2008 sought that the enforcement be postponed. 43. On 6 February 2008 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed Z.J.’s motion for postponement of the enforcement. On 25 February 2008 Z.J. appealed against that decision. 44. On 28 February 2011 the Municipal Court forwarded Z.J.’s appeals of 24 December 2007 and 25 February 2008 to the Zagreb County Court for a decision. 45. By a letter of 19 April 2011 the County Court returned the case file to the Municipal Court asking it to correct certain errors in the first-instance proceedings. 46. In the meantime, on 10 June 2009 the applicant had lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining about the length of the second set of the enforcement proceedings. 47. On 26 September 2011 the Supreme Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and: (a) awarded him HRK 5,000 in compensation, (b) ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to correct the errors indicated in the Zagreb County Court’s letter of 19 April 2011 within a month (see paragraph 45 above), and (c) ordered the Zagreb County Court to decide on Z.J.’s appeals of 24 December 2007 and 25 February 2008 within three months upon receiving the case file again from the Municipal Court. 48. By decisions of 6 March 2012 the County Court dismissed Z.J.’s appeals of 24 December 2007 and 25 February 2008. 49. Meanwhile, on 9 October 2011 the applicant’s son turned eighteen and became an adult. Accordingly, the above enforcement proceedings became obsolete. Consequently, by a decision of 13 January 2013 the Municipal Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings. 50. Parallel to the above civil proceedings concerning inter alia custody and access, the local social welfare centre acted in various ways in order to solve the family conflicts. 51. On 20 March 2003 the local social welfare centre issued a decision whereby it provisionally granted the applicant access rights until the judgment in the above civil proceedings became final, and issued a contact schedule. In particular, the centre decided that the contacts between the applicant and his son were to take place every second Friday for one hour on its premises in the presence of a child-welfare professional for a period of three months. The decision specified that an appeal against it did not suspend its enforcement. On 14 April 2003 Z.J. appealed against that decision. 52. On 15 April 2003 the centre informed Z.J. of the need to cooperate with it and enable the contacts between the applicant and his son. It warned her that the failure to do so may be considered as dereliction of her duties as a parent calling for more stringent child-protection measures. 53. On 27 June 2003 the applicant applied to the centre for enforcement of its decision of 20 March 2003. 54. However, acting on the appeal by Z.J. of 14 April 2003, on 22 September 2003 the relevant Ministry, as the second-instance administrative authority, quashed the centre’s decision of 20 March 2003 and remitted the case. Accordingly, on 3 December 2003 the centre discontinued the administrative enforcement proceedings instituted by the applicant on 27 June 2003. 55. On 30 October 2003 the applicant applied to the centre to issue a new decision on his access rights. 56. On 22 December 2003 the local social welfare centre issued a new decision whereby it again provisionally granted the applicant access rights until the judgment in the above civil proceedings became final, and issued a new contact schedule. The decision specified that an appeal against it did not suspend its enforcement. On 19 January 2004 Z.J. appealed. 57. On 13 July 2004 the relevant Ministry dismissed that appeal and upheld the centre’s decision. Z.J. then brought an action in the Administrative Court against the Ministry’s decision, which that court dismissed on 17 February 2005. 58. In the meantime, on 15 October 2004 the applicant applied for enforcement of the local social welfare centre’s decision of 22 December 2003 (see paragraph 56 above). However, it would appear that before 29 June 2005, that is, the date on which the judgment of the Zagreb Municipal Court of 23 July 2004 in the above civil proceedings became final (see paragraph 29-30 above) and thus superseded the decision the applicant sought to enforce, the local social welfare centre did not issue an enforcement order or undertake other steps to enforce its decision. 59. Concurrently with the administrative proceedings described above (see paragraphs 51-58), the local social welfare centre conducted other administrative proceedings. In particular, by a decision of 23 December 2003 the local social welfare centre imposed a child-protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority (see paragraph 82 below) for a period of one year, appointed a supervising officer and drafted a supervision programme. 60. On 2 February 2004 the supervision officer informed the centre that Z.J. ignored her calls to arrange the first meeting between the applicant and his son in the execution of the centre’s decision of 22 December 2003 (see paragraph 56 above) granting him provisional access rights. On the same day the centre adopted the opinion that the supervision measure should be discontinued as ineffective and that criminal-law measures should be set in motion instead (see paragraph 68 below). 61. On 1 March 2004 the supervising officer submitted her report to the centre stating that no contacts between the applicant and his son had taken place since the adoption of the centre’s decision of 22 December 2003 (see paragraph 56 above). At the same time she proposed that the contacts between the applicant and his son be arranged on school premises in the presence of a pedagogue. 62. By a decision of 9 March 2004 the centre discontinued the application of the child-protection measure of supervision of the exercise of the parental authority imposed by its decision of 23 December 2003 (see paragraph 59 above). It stated that the measure was ineffective given Z.J.’s lack of cooperation and that other, more stringent, child-protection measures were warranted. On 17 March 2004 Z.J. appealed against that decision. 63. On 17 February 2005 the relevant Ministry quashed the centre’s decisions of 23 December 2003 and 9 March 2004 (see paragraphs 59 and 62 above) and remitted the case. 64. In the resumed proceedings, after having heard the applicant and Z.J. on 19 April 2005, by a decision of 13 May 2005 the centre again imposed the child-protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority for a period of one year, appointed a supervising officer and prepared a programme of supervision. Z.J. appealed. 65. On 3 June, 4 and 31 July 2005 the supervising officer informed the centre that contacts between the applicant and his son had not taken place due to Z.J.’s lack of cooperation. 66. On 29 December 2005 the relevant Ministry dismissed an appeal by Z.J. and upheld the centre’s decision of 13 May 2005 (see paragraph 64 above). 67. The child-protection measure imposed by the centre in its decision of 13 May 2005 expired on 15 May 2006. Monthly reports submitted by the supervising officer suggest that in that one-year period the applicant had not met his son. 68. On 5 February 2004 the local social welfare centre invited the Zagreb State Attorney’s Office to bring criminal charges against Z.J. for her failure to cooperate with the centre and the supervising officer, obstruction of measures issued by the centre and dereliction of her duties as a parent regarding her son’s contacts with his father. 69. On 24 March 2004 the Zagreb State Attorney’s Office informed the social welfare centre that, for the time being, there were no grounds to prosecute Z.J. for the criminal offence of obstruction of the child-protection measures defined in section 215 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 84 below) because the decisions whose execution Z.J. allegedly obstructed had not become final. 70. On 14 April 2004 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against Z.J. with the same State Attorney’s Office accusing her of the same criminal offence. 71. On 29 September 2004 the State Attorney’s Office dismissed his criminal complaint. In so doing, it advanced the same reasons as those stated in its letter to the social welfare centre of 24 March 2004 (see paragraph 69 above). 72. On 18 November 2005 the local social welfare centre informed the State Attorney’s Office that decisions whose execution Z.J. had been obstructing had become final and invited the State Attorney’s Office to criminally prosecute her. 73. On 5 December 2005 the State Attorney’s Office indicted Z.J. before the Zagreb Municipal Court for having been obstructing the court-ordered contacts between the applicant and his son. In particular, she was charged with the criminal offence of obstruction of child-protection measures laid down in section 215 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 84 below). 74. By a judgment of 24 June 2008 the Municipal Court found Z.J. guilty as charged and convicted her but the judgment was subsequently quashed by the Zagreb County Court following her appeal and the case was remitted. 75. In the resumed proceedings, by a judgment of 24 January 2011 the Zagreb Municipal Court again found Z.J. guilty as charged and sentenced her to five months’ imprisonment but imposed a suspended sentence with supervision (uvjetna osuda sa zaštitnim nadzorom) for a period of three years provided that in that (probation) period she did not commit a further offence. In its judgment the court noted, inter alia, the following: “This court is deeply aware that all decisions and judgments including this one can no longer remedy the harm and evil caused by the conduct of the accused, primarily to her child, who grew up without a father ... However, it can at least emphasise that such behaviour is unacceptable and punishable ... When determining the penalty the court took into account, as aggravating circumstances, the fact that for a number of years the accused deliberately, perfidiously and deceitfully obstructed enforcement of any court decision or decision of the social welfare centre and in so doing behaved arrogantly and acted as if she was untouchable and in that way hindered a healthy and undisturbed development of her son. The court did not find any special mitigating circumstances.” 76. By a judgment of 16 March 2012 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by Z.J. and upheld the first-instance judgment. 77. In 2002 Z.J. instituted non-contentious proceedings against the applicant before the Zagreb Municipal Court with a view to depriving him of parental responsibility for his son. 78. By a judgment of 2 November 2004 the court dismissed Z.J.’s petition. It held that her claims that the applicant had abandoned his son, grossly neglected his duties as a parent and failed to pay (regularly) for his maintenance were unfounded. In so doing it relied on the report of the local social welfare centre suggesting that it was Z.J. who had obstructed the applicant’s contacts with his son.

{'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 lived in Donetsk. 7. On 28 January 2003 the applicant sustained two knife cuts. According to him, they were inflicted by two strangers, who attacked him on a deserted street. 8. At about 2 p.m. on 29 January 2003 the applicant was arrested at his home by three police officers and taken to the Proletarskiy District Police Station in Donetsk (“District Police Station”) for questioning in connection with a murder of L.S., an adolescent girl. Later on the same day he was also taken for questioning to the Proletarskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“District Prosecutor’s Office”). 9. On the same date O. was appointed as the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer. According to the applicant, she saw him briefly, advised him to remain silent and left him alone during the actual questioning. 10. As follows from the report of the applicant’s questioning dated 29 January 2003 and countersigned by him and by his lawyer, he provided detailed information on his life and personal details, but refused to make any statement concerning the offence of which he was suspected. 11. In the evening of 29 January 2003 an ambulance team was called to provide the applicant with medical assistance for his cuts. Upon its arrival at 7:30 p.m., the team recorded that the applicant had two cuts on his body and a flushed red face (лицо гиперемировано), that he was conscious, had normal blood pressure (120/80), was breathing freely, and that his general state was satisfactory. Having provided the applicant with first aid for his wounds, the ambulance team left at 7:55 p.m. 12. On 30 January 2003 the applicant complained to the District Prosecutor’s Office of having been tortured by the police officers before and after having been brought to the police station. He noted, in particular, that the three police officers who had arrested him had severely beaten him all over his body, including in the groin area, notwithstanding that he was unable to resist his arrest in any event as he was suffering from two cuts sustained the previous day. Upon his arrival at the police station at about 3 p.m., several police officers had started torturing him with a view to extracting a confession from him. In particular, they had put plastic bags filled with cigarette smoke over his head, twisted his fingers, stepped on his hands with their feet, beaten him, punched him while pressing a book against his body and suspended him handcuffed face down between two desks. As a result, he had started to lose consciousness and had felt so unwell that an ambulance had to be called. However, according to the applicant, the ambulance team had not taken his complaints seriously and had omitted to record a number of injuries. Following the departure of the ambulance team, the applicant’s ill-treatment, according to him, continued until the morning of 30 January 2003. 13. At about 3:30 p.m. on 30 January 2003 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert who had been asked to assess his injuries, to comment on their timing and the manner in which they had been inflicted, and to assess whether they could have been inflicted by the applicant’s own hand. The expert noted in his report that the applicant had suffered two cuts and some twelve surface injuries (scratches, abrasions, bruises, etc.) on the face and other parts of his body. He further noted that the applicant’s injuries cumulatively qualified as “minor”, that they had been inflicted as a result of the impact of blunt and sharpened objects within one to two days before the assessment and that their location was within the reach of the applicant’s own hand. 14. On 31 January 2003 the Proletarskiy District Court (“District Court”) ordered the applicant’s detention for ten days pending the investigation against him. The applicant did not appeal against this decision. 15. On 3 February 2003 the District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings regarding the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment by the police. It noted that according to the statements of the police officers who had been involved in his arrest and the police investigator in whose office he had been questioned, neither they, nor anyone else in their presence had beaten or otherwise ill-treated the applicant. 16. On 7 February 2003 the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer O. was replaced by legal-aid lawyer K. 17. On 7 February 2003 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant, represented by lawyer K., did not appeal against this decision. 18. On 8 February 2003 the applicant was placed in detention at the Donetsk pre-trial detention centre (SIZO). 19. On numerous occasions the applicant complained to various authorities that for several days prior to his transfer to the SIZO he had been held in a cell with an inmate suffering from tuberculosis and that the decision of 3 February 2003 not to institute criminal proceedings regarding his ill-treatment on 29 January 2003 had been unfair. He also alleged that not all of his injuries had been recorded following the expert examination on 30 January 2003 and that on 4 March 2003 he had been groundlessly beaten by a convoy officer. 20. In March 2003 investigator A.D. of the District Prosecutor’s Office, who was investigating L.S.’s murder and the theft from her flat organised confrontations between the applicant and several police officers implicated by him in his ill-treatment. During these confrontations, the officers denied that any ill-treatment had taken place. The applicant refused to comment claiming that A.D. had been rude, biased and insulting towards him. 21. On 18 March 2003 the District Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings regarding the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment in January 2003. It noted that no evidence of ill-treatment had been discovered during the questioning of the officers involved and the confrontations between the parties. It further noted that according to the detention facility’s log book, the applicant had been detained alone and not with a sick inmate, as he had claimed. 22. The applicant appealed against the aforementioned decision to the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office (“Regional Prosecutor’s Office”) and to other authorities, complaining, in particular, that the confrontations had been organised with a view to obtain self-incriminating evidence from him, rather than to verify his allegations of ill-treatment. He also complained that as a result of having been beaten by the police, he could no longer move his left leg properly. 23. In March 2003 A.D. ordered a further forensic assessment of the applicant’s injuries, asking the expert, in particular, to comment on whether these injuries could have been inflicted by L.S. in the course of self-defence and whether any of the applicant’s injuries could be characteristic of an attempt to strangle or suffocate him. According to the results of this assessment, which was carried out on 15 and 16 April 2003, it was found possible that the injuries recorded on 30 January 2003 had been inflicted by L.S. in the course of self-defence. No injuries characteristic of strangling or suffocation could be identified. 24. On 4 April 2003 the SIZO neurologist diagnosed the applicant as suffering from post-traumatic neuritis of the peroneal nerve. 25. In April 2003 A.D. ordered a further expert assessment, requesting an opinion as to whether the applicant had indeed been suffering from post-traumatic neuritis, and, if so, when and as a result of which trauma it had developed. In particular, the expert was asked to comment on whether this condition could be connected to the injuries recorded on 30 January 2003. 26. On 22 April 2003 the same expert who had conducted the previous assessments confirmed that the applicant was suffering from neuritis of the peroneal nerve, but that it was not possible to determine when and how it had developed. 27. On the same date the District Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings regarding the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment by the police. It referred to the same arguments as in the previous refusals and to the findings of the expert assessment, according to which no probable connection between the applicant’s post-traumatic neuritis and his alleged ill-treatment in January 2003 could be established. 28. The applicant appealed against this decision to the District Court and to other authorities, alleging that the investigation of his complaints had been formalistic and superficial, that he had been barred from putting questions to the expert and that the expert was himself biased. 29. On 29 April 2003 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. Subsequently (on 8 August 2003) the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (the “Regional Court”) reviewed this decision and ordered joinder of the applicant’s complaint to the merits of the criminal case against him. The applicant’s further cassation appeal against this decision was left without examination on the ground that he had not rectified its procedural shortcomings. According to the applicant, he was not notified of this decision. 30. According to the applicant, on 6 May 2003, while he was studying his criminal case file at the premises of the prosecutor’s office, investigator A.D. groundlessly hit him in the face. As a result of his blows, the applicant’s nose bled and stained his sweater, the surrounding furniture, and pages of the case file. 31. On 7 May 2003 the applicant complained to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office that he had been hit by A.D., but received no response. 32. On 16 May 2003 the applicant was escorted from the SIZO to the District Police Station for questioning and temporarily detained in the police detention facility. According to him, police officer V.D., who was on duty on that day, insulted him, punched him twice in the face and also kicked his back. 33. On the same date upon the applicant’s return, the SIZO medical staff recorded that he was suffering from a contused wound on the lip, bruising of the soft tissues of the face and an abrasion on his back and forwarded the applicant’s complaints concerning V.D.’s conduct to the District Prosecutor’s Office for investigation. 34. On 27 May 2003 the District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings regarding the incident of 16 May 2003. It noted that according to the statements given by V.D. and his colleague A.P., who had also been on duty on the relevant day, V.D. had never hit or insulted the applicant. Both officers had noted that the applicant had facial injuries upon his exit from the detention facility. They considered that those injuries had probably been caused by the applicant himself, while he had been in his cell, in order to harm the reputation of the duty officers. According to the applicant, he was never notified of this decision and continued complaining to various authorities that his allegations of ill-treatment had not been investigated. 35. In the autumn of 2003 the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Regional Court on charges of having murdered L.S. and having stolen valuables from her flat. 36. In November 2003 the applicant’s mother was admitted to the proceedings as his non-legal defender. 37. On an unspecified date I. replaced K. as the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer. 38. On 17 December 2003 the Regional Court questioned investigator A.D. concerning the circumstances in which the applicant’s criminal case-file had been stained by blood. During the hearing A.D. accepted that he was not sure about the origin of the bloodstains. He suggested that the file could have been stained by L.S.’s blood in January 2003 or by the applicant’s blood during the period when he was studying it, as he might have felt unwell and might have suffered a nosebleed. 39. On 26 January 2004 the Regional Court remitted the applicant’s case for additional investigation. It instructed the investigative authorities, in particular, to conduct further inquiry into the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints and to determine the origin of the bloodstains on the case-file materials. 40. On 9 July 2004 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against A.D., finding the applicant’s complaints of having been beaten by him on 6 May 2003 to be unsubstantiated. It noted that according to A.D.’s own explanations given in 2004 and supported by his colleague A.K., on 6 May 2003 the applicant had scratched his nose until it bled in order to harm A.D.’s reputation. According to the applicant, this decision was only communicated to him in October 2004. 41. On an unspecified date the case concerning L.S.’s murder and theft from her flat was remitted back to the Regional Court for trial. 42. On 28 October 2004 the applicant appealed against the prosecutor’s office’s refusal to investigate his complaint concerning the incident of 6 May 2003 before the Regional Court, which was examining his criminal case. He noted, in particular, that no effort had ever been made to collect objective evidence or to examine the bloodstains. He also noted that A.D.’s statement given to the prosecutor’s office was at odds with his statement given to the court six months previously and that it was improbable that in giving his fresh statement he could better recall the relevant details. 43. During the trial the Regional Court questioned numerous witnesses, including some of the officers implicated by the applicant in his alleged ill‑treatment and examined various sources of evidence, including the police reports concerning the discovery of the applicant’s fingerprints on the furniture in L.S.’s flat and of the bag with L.S.’s belongings in the building, where the applicant lived. The applicant alleged that the witnesses had collectively plotted against him and that the police officers had planted and falsified real evidence and had destroyed evidence indicative of his innocence. He further complained that his right to defence had been breached, in particular, as his first questioning took place without a lawyer and a number of case-file documents, including his questioning report of 29 January 2003, had been falsified. 44. On 9 November 2004 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of having murdered L.S. and having stolen valuables from her flat and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It further found that the applicant’s allegations concerning the breach of his right to defence and his other procedural complaints were unsubstantiated and that the prosecutorial authorities had provided convincing explanations for rejecting his allegations of ill-treatment. As regards the applicant’s injuries recorded on 30 January 2003, they had in all likelihood been caused as a result of attempts by L.S. to defend herself from the applicant’s attack. 45. The applicant and his legal-aid lawyer I. lodged cassation appeals against the judgment of 9 November 2004, alleging, in particular, that neither the Regional Court nor the prosecutor’s office had properly investigated allegations of the applicant’s ill-treatment, that his conviction had been based on assumptions and falsified evidence and that his procedural rights, including right to defence, had been breached. 46. On 18 and 30 May 2005 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant in a letter that there was no basis for instituting criminal proceedings regarding his allegations of ill-treatment, as those allegations had already been examined and rejected as unsubstantiated. 47. On 10 May 2005 the applicant was x-rayed and found to be suffering from tuberculosis. 48. On 17 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence. It found that the applicant’s ill‑treatment complaints had been thoroughly examined by the law-enforcement authorities and by the Regional Court and that these complaints had been correctly dismissed as unsubstantiated. It also found that there was no appearance of breaches of the applicant’s procedural rights which could have led to the proceedings as a whole being unfair and which would warrant the quashing of his sentence. 49. In February 2007 the applicant was transferred from Donetsk SIZO to Ladyzhyn Colony to serve his sentence. According to him, this transfer was intended to make it more difficult for him to keep in contact with his mother and to correspond with his lawyer. Moreover, the Ladyzhyn Colony administration routinely read through, delayed or lost his correspondence and concealed a parcel with stationary and supplies in it which had been sent to him by his supporters, in order to impede his pursuing the Convention proceedings. 50. On 22 March 2007 the applicant asked the Supreme Court of Ukraine to provide him with copies of various documents from his case file, including the transcript and audio-recordings of his trial, for their submission to the Court within the present application. 51. On 24 May 2007 the applicant’s request was rejected.

{'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 1959, 1950 and 1952 respectively, and live in Brestovec Orehovički and Krapina respectively. 6. In 1990 I. Ku., the applicants’ predecessor, brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against M.K., seeking his eviction from a flat and reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings. 7. In 2001, following the death of I. Ku, the applicants, as his heirs, took over the proceedings as plaintiffs, while M. K. also died in the course of proceedings and I. Kr. replaced him as defendant. 8. During the proceedings, I. Kr. brought a counterclaim against the applicants, seeking either a specially protected tenancy of the flat at issue or compensation for investments in the flat he had made in the amount of 95,000 Croatian kunas (HRK). The applicants also, in addition to I. Ku.’s civil action, requested the Zagreb Municipal Court to order I. Kr. to remove everything he had installed in the flat. 9. At the closing hearing before the Zagreb Municipal Court on 12 June 2007 the applicants reiterated all their arguments and requested reimbursement of the costs of proceedings. At the same hearing, the applicants submitted a written itemised claim for costs in the amount of HRK 14,786.40. At the same time, the defendant’s representative reiterated his arguments and requested reimbursement of the costs in the amount which he promised to specify later. 10. On the same day the Zagreb Municipal Court allowed the applicants’ action in part, ordering the eviction of I. Kr. from the flat, whereas it dismissed the remainder of their civil action, as well as I. Kr.’s counterclaim for compensation of the investments in the flat. As regards the costs of the proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Court noted: “With regard to the costs of the proceedings, each party shall bear their own costs, as provided under section 154 § 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the plaintiff succeeded with part of [their] action while [they] were dismissed as regards the remainder, and the counterclaim was fully dismissed.” 11. On 10 October 2008, in a supplementary judgment, the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed I. Kr.’s civil action for a specially protected tenancy. 12. Meanwhile, the parties challenged the first-instance judgment of the Zagreb Municipal Court of 12 June 2007 before the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). The applicants argued that the first-instance court had incorrectly assessed the situation concerning their right to reimbursement of the costs of proceedings. 13. On 2 February 2010 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed the appeals and upheld the first-instance judgment. As regards the applicants’ arguments concerning the costs of proceedings, the Zagreb County Court noted: “... it is to be noted that [the applicants] correctly consider that they should be reimbursed the costs of the proceedings, since the part of their claim by which they sought the eviction [of I. Kr.] from the flat was successful. However, it is to be noted that the case file shows that they failed to comply with the requirement under section 164 § 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that a party must set out his or her request for reimbursement of costs at the latest at the end of the closing hearing which precedes the decision on costs. At the hearing held on 12 June 2007, by which the proceedings terminated, [the applicants’] representative sought reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings based on an itemised claim which he was supposed to submit. However, there is no such itemised claim in the case file, and the reimbursement of costs was not sought earlier, while certain procedural actions were being taken. This is the reason why the costs of the proceedings could not be reimbursed to [the applicants].” 14. On 14 April 2010 the applicants challenged the judgment of the Zagreb County Court by lodging a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). They pointed out that the Zagreb County Court had manifestly incorrectly assessed their request for reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings, overlooking the fact that they had indeed submitted in writing an itemised claim for costs, and had therefore arbitrarily dismissed their complaints in that respect. 15. On 23 September 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ constitutional complaint inadmissible, on the grounds that the contested judgment had not concerned the merits of their civil rights or obligations, and as such was not susceptible to constitutional review. This decision was served on the applicants on 18 October 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 1968 and, at the time of the most recent communication from the applicant, was detained in Odessa. 6. On an unspecified date in 2006 K. mentioned in a confession given whilst being questioned by the police that the applicant had participated in the murder of Z., a gang member, in 2002. 7. On 28 July 2006 the applicant was stopped on the motorway and arrested by police, who also seized his car. 8. According to the applicant, the reasons for his arrest were not clearly explained to him. Between 28 July and 1 August 2006 he was transferred to various police units and questioned. 9. On 30 July 2006 the police found explosives in the car which had been seized from the applicant upon his arrest. 10. On 1 August 2006 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of the illegal possession of explosives and the murder of Z., and an arrest report was drafted and countersigned by the applicant. 11. On 4 August 2006 the Kyivskiy District Court of Odessa (“the Kyivskiy Court”) remanded the applicant in custody for ten days pending collection of information concerning his person. 12. On 10 August 2006 the applicant was formally charged with possessing illegal explosives and taking part in the murder of Z., which had been committed by an organised gang in 2002. 13. On 11 August 2006 the Kyivskiy Court remanded the applicant in custody for two months, to be counted from 28 July 2006. The court noted that the gravity of the charges against the applicant constituted a sufficient basis for the fear that he would abscond or interfere with the investigation if released. 14. On the same day the court made a separate ruling drawing the attention of the Minister of the Interior to breaches of the applicant’s rights whilst effecting his arrest. It noted, in particular, that the applicant’s undocumented detention between 28 July and 1 August 2006 was unlawful. The court asked the Minister to investigate the incident. The case file does not show any follow-up. 15. The applicant, acting through his lawyer, appealed against the detention order. He submitted that he had good references from his employer, had a family including three children who were minors, and that he had been suffering from health problems. 16. On 17 August 2006 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Odessa Court of Appeal”) rejected the applicant’s appeal. The court noted, in particular, that taking into account the gravity of the charges against the applicant, together with the fact that he resided in Crimea ‒ whereas the investigative authority was located in Odessa ‒ there was reason to fear that he might abscond or interfere with the investigation if released. 17. On 25 September 2006 the Odessa Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 28 February 2007, stating in general terms that the applicant might abscond, pressure witnesses or interfere with the investigation if released. 18. On 23 February 2007 the applicant, represented by his lawyer, lodged an objection against the investigative authority’s request to extend his detention. He reiterated that he had a permanent address, a family with three children who were minors, and that prior to his arrest he had been engaged in lawful business activity. He referred to the aggravation of his ulcers and stated that during the time he had been held in custody, no investigative action involving him had been initiated and no new evidence of his involvement in any crime had been discovered. 19. On 26 February 2007 the Odessa Court of Appeal allowed the investigative authority’s request and extended the applicant’s detention until 28 April 2007, giving the same reasons as in its decision of 25 September 2006. 20. On 20 April 2007 the applicant, represented by his lawyer, and citing the same reasons as before, again brought an objection against the investigative authority’s request to extend his detention. 21. On 24 April 2007 the Supreme Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 22 August 2007, stating that additional investigative action needed to be taken and there were no reasons to release the applicant. 22. On 9 August 2007 the applicant was charged with participation in several other offences committed in a gang, including murders, abductions, and torture. 23. On 14 August 2007 the Supreme Court granted the investigative authority’s request to extend the detention of six purported criminal gang members, including the applicant, until 17 February 2008. It noted the gravity of the charges, the fact that the investigation related to thirty different episodes of alleged crimes committed by a criminal association and that the investigative authorities needed more time to finish their work. 24. According to the Government, during the pre-trial investigation the authorities interviewed in total 17 defendants, 21 victims and 275 witnesses, conducted 30 face-to-face confrontations, 37 identification parades, 20 reconstructions and 14 seizures, obtained 66 experts’ reports and carried out a number of other investigative actions. 25. On 18 December 2007 the applicant was presented with the final bill of indictment. In addition to previous charges, the applicant was also indicted for participation in an armed gang (banditry). 26. On 24 December 2007 the investigation was completed and the applicant and his co-defendants were given time to study the case file. 27. On 24 January 2008 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Kyiv Court of Appeal”) extended the applicant’s detention until 20 August 2008, noting the gravity of the charges, confirming that the decision to place him in detention was correct, and referring to the need to complete the study of the case file. 28. On 14 August 2008 the applicant lodged an objection against the investigative authority’s request to extend his detention. He argued, in particular, that the reason that familiarisation with the case file materials was taking so long was poor procedural organisation. 29. On 15 August 2008 the Kyiv Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 20 October 2008, citing the same reasons as in its decision of 24 January 2008. 30. On 9 October 2008 the applicant notified the prosecutor’s office that although there was some case file material he had not yet seen, he waived his right to further study and asked to be released pending trial. 31. On 12 October 2008 the General Prosecutor’s Office promised to send the applicant the relevant procedural forms but stated that there were no grounds for his release. 32. On 14 October 2008 the applicant again objected, in similar terms, to the prosecution’s request for extension of his detention. 33. On 15 October 2008 the Kyiv Court of Appeal allowed the prosecution’s request, extending the applicant’s detention until 20 December 2008, and stating, in addition to reasons given previously, that the defendants needed time to complete the study of the case file. 34. On 16 December 2008 the Kyiv Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s detention until 19 February 2009, citing the same reasons. 35. Between 19 February and 18 March 2009 the applicant remained in detention. 36. On 18 March 2009 the Odessa Court of Appeal, acting as the trial court, held a preparatory hearing in the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ case. It rejected the applicant’s request for release, lodged on the same day, stating that there was no basis for granting it. 37. On 15 June 2011 the applicant, represented by his lawyer, asked to be released pending trial, arguing that his health was deteriorating, that there was insufficient evidence against him, that because all the witnesses and victims had already testified at trial the applicant would not be able to pressure them, and lastly that he had good references, two dependent children who were minors, and a permanent address. 38. On 15 June 2011 the Odessa Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s request, noting the gravity of the charges against him and stating that the trial was not complete and that there was no reason to release him. 39. According to the Government, a total of 151 hearings were held in the case by the Odessa Court of Appeal, a number of which were adjourned, some due to the failure of one of the defendants ‒ who was at liberty ‒ to attend. 40. On 18 October 2011 the Odessa Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of murder, kidnapping, and banditry and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment with confiscation of his property. 41. According to the applicant, on 30 July 2013 the Higher Civil and Criminal Court, on appeal from him and his lawyer, upheld his conviction and amended the judgment of the trial court, rectifying the domestic legal classification of one of the offences. 42. On 16 October 2006 the General Prosecutor’s Office rejected the request for a meeting with the applicant lodged by I.O., the applicant’s wife. The General Prosecutor’s Office noted there was “no indication that a meeting between the relatives and [the applicant] was necessary” at the time. 43. According to the applicant, he was denied the possibility of meeting or corresponding with his family for the entire period of his pre-trial detention. 44. On 25 May 2009 the applicant lodged a request with the Odessa Court of Appeal for permission for a visit from his family, namely his mother, wife and children. He stated that throughout the period of his pre-trial detention the investigative authorities had rejected his requests for family visits without sufficient justification. 45. According to the Government, the applicant’s request of 25 May 2009 was granted but the applicant’s relatives did not avail themselves of it and did not visit 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 applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Sisak. 6. In 1993 the applicant took up employment with the Sisak-Moslavina Police Department (Policijska uprava sisačko-moslavačka) as a police officer. On 1 January 1998 he was assigned to a post in the Dvor Police Station (Policijska postaja Dvor). 7. Dvor is a municipality that receives special State support as defined by the legislation in force at that time, namely the Act on Areas receiving Special State Support (Zakona o područjima posebne državne skrbi, Official Gazette, nos. 44/1996, 57/1996, 124/1997 and 73/2000; hereinafter: the “Special State Support Act”). Among other things, that Act guaranteed to those employed in the public sector in areas receiving special State support a special salary uplift, which in the case of the Dvor municipality amounted to 50% of the salaries received in other parts of the country. 8. The amendments to the Special State Support Act which entered into force on 29 July 2000 (Official Gazette no. 73/2000) guaranteed the right to a special salary bonus only to those public sector employees in areas receiving special State support who had both their registered domicile (prebivalište) and also actually resided (borave) in the area at issue. 9. In May 2001 the applicant was assigned to another post in the Sisak-Moslavina Police Department, with his place of work being Sisak. 10. On 29 September 2000 the applicant brought an action against the State in the Kutina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kutini), seeking payment of a salary bonus in accordance with the Special State Support Act. 11. Soon afterwards the Kutina Municipal Court decided that it was not competent to hear the case and transferred it to the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Hrvatskoj Kostajnici). 12. During the proceedings before the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court, the Sisak State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Sisku) ‒ representing the State ‒ objected to that court’s territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant had his domicile and lived in Majur, which was also within an area receiving special State support but outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court. The Sisak State Attorney’s Office also submitted that the applicant had been receiving expenses for travel between Sisak and Dvor and that he was not entitled to the special salary bonus as provided under the Special State Support Act because Sisak was not an area receiving special State support. 13. The applicant replied to these submissions with the argument that during his tenure in Dvor he had had authorisation to use a police car, and that he had in fact lived in Majur, but since his house had not been fully reconstructed after the war, he had also spent some time in Sisak. 14. With regard to the contentious submissions of the parties, the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court heard evidence from the applicant, who pointed out that during his tenure in Dvor his registered domicile had been Majur, where he had actually resided ‒ some of the time in his own house and some of the time with his sister, since his house had needed reconstruction. He also explained that he had had authorisation to use a police car and had also been entitled to travel expenses, even though he had actually lived in Majur. 15. On 2 October 2003 the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s civil action, ordering the State to pay compensation for his special salary bonus in the total amount of 67,214.69 Croatian kunas (HRK), together with the statutory default interest, for the period between 1 February 1998 and 1 May 2001, and to reimburse him the costs of the proceedings in the amount of HRK 7,978.80. 16. The Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court pointed out that the applicant’s statement as to his domicile and his residence was credible and nothing called it into doubt. It also stressed that the Sisak State Attorney’s Office had neither provided any evidence nor challenged the veracity of the applicant’s statement. Instead, it had argued in its submissions that the applicant had both his domicile and his residence in Majur, within an area receiving special State support. As to the submission concerning travel expenses, the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court considered that this was a matter relating to the employment conditions of civil servants, which did not in itself have any bearing on the applicant’s domicile and residence. Against this background, the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court found that the applicant’s claim should be accepted. 17. On 22 October 2003 the Sisak State Attorney’s Office challenged the first-instance judgment before the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) contending that the applicant had only had his domicile in Majur, whereas the travel expenses suggested that he had in fact lived in Sisak. It thus considered that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria of the Special State Support Act necessary to qualify for a special salary uplift. 18. In a decision of 26 February 2004 endorsing all the factual and legal findings of the first-instance judgment, the Sisak County Court dismissed the appeal by the Sisak State Attorney’s Office. The first-instance judgment thus became final. 19. On 19 April 2004 the Kutina Municipal Court opened enforcement proceedings against the State on the basis of the final and enforceable judgment in the applicant’s favour. 20. The judgment was fully enforced on 26 April 2004 by payment of the due amount to the applicant. 21. On 20 May 2004 the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia (Državno odvjetništvo Republike Hrvatske) lodged a request for the protection of legality (zahtjev za zaštitu zakonitosti) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the part of the final judgment of the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court by which the applicant had been awarded HRK 19,238.59 for the period between 11 August 2000 and 5 May 2001 on account of the special salary uplift. It reiterated that the travel expenses which the applicant had received suggested that he had actually resided in Sisak in the period at issue, which could also be deduced from the fact that he had provided an address in Sisak in the civil action he lodged before the Kutina Municipal Court. Thus, once the 2000 amendments to the Special State Support Act had entered into force (see paragraph 8 above), the applicant had no longer been entitled to the special salary bonus since he had no longer resided in an area receiving special State support, which was a precondition for the special uplift, as explained in the judgment of the Supreme Court no. Gzz-190/03 of 18 February 2004. 22. The applicant challenged the request for the protection of legality, arguing that it could not be used as a remedy and that it substantially contradicted the general position on the matter adopted at the meeting of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court on 13 June 2003. 23. On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Court approved the request for the protection of legality, quashed the second-instance judgment in the impugned part, and remitted the case to the Sisak County Court. The Supreme Court held that the 2000 amendments to the Special State Support Act made it clear that civil servants employed in an area receiving special State support who applied for a special salary bonus should also have their domicile and residence in that area. It therefore ordered the Sisak County Court to reassess the appeal arguments of the Sisak Municipal State Attorney’s Office as to whether or not such conditions had been met in the applicant’s case. 24. On 7 December 2006 the Sisak County Court accepted the Sisak Municipal State Attorney’s Office appeal, reversing the first-instance judgment of the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court in the part in which the applicant was granted HRK 19,238.59 for the period between 11 August 2000 and 5 May 2001 on account of the special salary uplift, and ordering the applicant to repay that amount together with the statutory default interest. The Sisak County Court also reversed the first-instance judgment in the part concerning the costs of the proceedings. 25. The Sisak County Court held that the evidence adduced before the first-instance court suggested that in the period at issue the applicant had not in fact resided in an area receiving special State support, and thus had not met all the requirements under the 2000 amendments to the Special State Support Act concerning the right to a special salary uplift. 26. On 30 January 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the judgment of the Sisak County Court of 7 December 2006, challenging the use of a request for the protection of legality in his case. 27. On 29 April 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded, holding that the lower courts had acted in accordance with the law. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 31 May 2010. 28. According to a certificate issued by the Ministry of the Interior on 30 December 2013, pursuant to the above proceedings the applicant repaid the total amount of HRK 28,700 from his salary to the 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'}

6. The first applicant was born in 1966 and currently lives in Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary. She came to Austria in 1990 holding a visa and settled in Vienna. She was later issued temporary residence permits, until she was granted a permanent residence permit on 30 September 1997. 7. The first applicant subsequently met an Austrian citizen and married him. From that union, the second applicant was born in 2002 in Vienna. The couple later divorced, but continued to hold joint custody of their son. 8. Other family members of the first applicant living in Austria are her daughter from a first marriage, her daughter’s husband and child, her brother and her parents. 9. The second applicant has Austrian citizenship and lives in Vienna with his father. Other family members of his living in Austria are his grandparents, his uncle, his half-sister and her family. 10. The first applicant’s criminal record shows seven convictions. 11. On 12 October 1993 the Hernals District Court (Bezirksgericht) convicted the first applicant of deliberately causing bodily harm and sentenced her to pay a fine of 5.400,00 Austrian Schillings (“ATS”). 12. On 6 September 1994 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Straflandesgericht, “the Criminal Court”) convicted the first applicant of attempted aggravated fraud and sentenced her to five months’ imprisonment, suspended with a probationary period of three years. 13. On 7 July 1995 the Donaustadt District Court convicted the first applicant of causing damage to private property and sentenced her to pay a fine of 40 daily rates (Tagessätze), in sum ATS 3.600,00. 14. On 7 May 2002 the Criminal Court convicted the first applicant of causing damage to private property, bodily harm and assault on a police officer and sentenced her to three months’ imprisonment, again suspended with a probationary period of three years. 15. On 24 April 2003 the Criminal Court convicted the first applicant and her former husband (the second applicant’s father) of partly attempted, partly completed fraud and sentenced them to two months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation. 16. On 28 July 2006 the Criminal Court convicted the first applicant of aggravated fraud and sentenced her to six months’ imprisonment. The probationary period for her previous conviction was extended to five years. 17. On 29 May 2008 the first applicant was convicted of partly attempted, partly completed aggravated fraud on a commercial basis and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. 18. The first applicant started serving her sentence on 28 September 2007 and was released on 30 December 2010. During that time, the second applicant lived with his father. 19. In a letter dated 29 September 1994 the Aliens Police (Fremdenpolizei) warned the first applicant that, if convicted once more, an exclusion order could be issued against her (Aufenthaltsverbot). 20. On 25 September 2008, following her latest conviction and three‑year prison sentence, the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion) issued an unlimited exclusion order against the first applicant, pursuant to sections 63 § 1 and 86 § 1 of the Aliens Police Act (Fremdenpolizeigesetz). It stated that after the first applicant’s conviction in 2006, the Aliens Police had refrained from issuing an exclusion order against her, because she had already been living in Austria for over 17 years and held a permanent residence permit. The authorities stated that at that point they did not consider that she posed a serious threat to public order and security within the meaning of section 86 § 1 of the Aliens Police Act. However, her most recent conviction did justify the assumption that her further stay in Austria endangered public order and safety. The exclusion order was necessary to protect the economic well‑being of Austria and to prevent criminal activities, hence it was in accordance with Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. It further held that even though the exclusion order constituted an interference with her private and family life, because her children and her parents lived in Austria, the public interest in her expulsion outweighed her interest in remaining in the country. 21. The first applicant appealed. During the oral hearing at the Vienna Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) on 28 January 2009, she provided a letter from a general practitioner, which stated that the separation from the second applicant due to her imprisonment had caused her son severe mental stress, and that it was important for his development to grow up with his mother. She stated that her son visited her frequently in prison, and that they tried their best to keep up their relationship. Furthermore, she pointed out that she also had other close family ties to Austria, with her daughter, her brother and her parents living there. She regretted her criminal convictions and requested that the exclusion order be lifted. 22. On 6 April 2009 the Vienna Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the appeal. It took into consideration the nature and seriousness of the offences the first applicant had committed and the resulting personality profile, reiterating that she had started her criminal activities shortly after her arrival in Austria. Her latest criminal conviction was based on numerous offences against private property, serving her as a source of income. She had therefore demonstrated that she did not respect the property of others, and that she constituted a danger to the public because of her fraudulent activities, which she had committed over a long period of time. Previous convictions for bodily harm and assault on a police officer showed that she did not shy away from attacks on life and limb either. Because she was serving her sentence at the time of the decision, it could not be assumed that the danger emanating from her person had diminished, which was why the unlimited exclusion order was justified. 23. Concerning her private and family life, the Independent Administrative Panel held that the first applicant was well integrated in Austria, and that many of her family members lived there, in particular her then seven-year-old son. The exclusion order therefore constituted an interference with her rights under Article 8 of the Convention. However, due to her criminal record and the serious nature of her offences, the public interest in her expulsion outweighed her personal interest in respect of her private and family life. Furthermore, because of the short distance between Bratislava and Vienna of around one hour by train, it would be possible for her family members to visit her frequently. The first applicant came to Austria when she was 24 years old, speaks the Slovak language and could easily reintegrate in her country of origin. Because of the seriousness of her crimes, and because the presence of her family members in Austria could not deter her from repeatedly committing offences, the exclusion order was proportionate to the aim pursued. Because it was not possible to assess when the first applicant would cease to represent a danger, there was no reason to limit the exclusion order. The Independent Administrative Panel added that the first applicant could apply for the lifting of the exclusion order after an appropriate interval, and in any event three years after its enforcement, if the circumstances for its issue had changed significantly. 24. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) relying, inter alia, on Article 8 of the Convention. 25. On 16 June 2009 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint and referred it to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). 26. On 9 November 2009 the Administrative Court rejected her complaint due to the lack of any important legal question to be answered. It stated that the Independent Administrative Panel had not deviated from the previous jurisprudence of the Administrative Court. 27. On 15 July 2010 the first applicant lodged an application for the exclusion order to be lifted pursuant to section 65 of the Aliens Police Act. 28. On 12 January 2011 the Vienna Federal Police Authority dismissed the application. 29. On 12 September 2011 the Independent Administrative Panel partly granted the first applicant’s appeal and reduced the duration of the exclusion order to eight years, because the relevant legal provisions had changed in the meantime. Pursuant to section 67 (formerly section 86) of the Aliens Police Act as in force at the relevant time, an exclusion order against a citizen of the European Economic Area (EEA) may not exceed ten years in duration. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of that provision, the exclusion order would therefore cease to be in force on 29 September 2016, irrespective of whether the first applicant actually left the country. 30. The first applicant appealed against this decision. On unspecified dates, the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court rejected her complaints. 31. The Vienna Youth and Family Office, in a statement dated 18 June 2012, noted that the separation of the applicants due to the first applicant’s imprisonment had already had a traumatizing effect on the second applicant and had strained the relationship between mother and son. Another separation would likely re-traumatize the second applicant and severely jeopardize his psychosocial development, which is why it would be in the best interest of the child to grant his mother a residence permit. 32. A medical report by psychologist E.G. dated 23 November 2012 attested that the second applicant was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, emotional disorder and separation anxiety as a result of the separation from his mother when she had to serve her time in prison. He was in need of constant psychological care and had voiced suicidal thoughts after he had learned that his mother would be expelled. Another separation from his mother would traumatise him again and have long-term effects on his mental state. 33. The neurologist N.F., in a report dated 16 November 2012, diagnosed the first applicant as suffering from a pre-suicidal syndrome and stress reaction and stated that any additional stress was to be avoided. Her psychologist E.G., in a statement of 23 November 2012, attested that she suffered from depression, anxiety and claustrophobia. She had also voiced suicidal thoughts. 34. A subsequent application by the first applicant for the exclusion order to be lifted, dated 12 August 2012, was unsuccessful. 35. On 4 December 2012 the first applicant was expelled to Slovakia. The second applicant has lived with his father in Vienna since then. Both parents continue to share custody.

{'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 1960 and lives in Zejtun. 8. By Act III of 2002 the Maltese Parliament introduced the right to legal assistance at the pre-trial stage. However, the law only came into force in 2010 by means of Legal Notice 35 of 2010. Prior to this Legal Notice Maltese law did not provide for legal assistance during the pre-trial investigation and specifically during questioning, whether by the police or by a magistrate in his investigative role. Before questioning, however, suspects would be cautioned, that is, informed of their right to remain silent and that anything they said could be taken down and produced as evidence. At the time, no inferences could be drawn by the trial courts from the silence of the accused at this stage. 9. Statements taken by the police could be confirmed on oath before the Court of Magistrates, in which case the person was entitled to be assisted by a lawyer. 10. On 30 April 2009 the Executive Police were authorised by the duty Magistrate to execute a search and arrest warrant relative to residence F. 11. On 1 May 2009 the search was carried out and it yielded the discovery of five bags of heroin (925.26 grams, 35 % purity), 755 euros (EUR) in two separate bundles, electrical weighing scales and a number of plastic bags with the corners missing. 12. On 2 May 2009 Mr Dimech was arrested and, after being cautioned about his right to remain silent, was questioned in the absence of legal assistance on suspicion of drug trafficking. He made a statement in which he admitted to certain facts but denied others. In a nutshell he explained that the 800 grams of heroin found in his possession during a search at his house were being kept as a guarantee against a sum of money he was owed, and that he had known that he would be given the drug as a guarantee when he lent the money. He admitted that he had hidden the drug in his fridge and stated that his partner had had nothing to do with it and was unaware of it. He denied, however, that the drugs were his and also denied that he ever used or sold drugs. His signed statement also indicated that he had made the statement voluntarily, without threats or promises, that it was the truth and that he did not want to change anything in it. 13. A magisterial inquiry (under Maltese law known as an inquiry relating to the in genere) was held on 13 May 2009 and the Inquiring Magistrate drew up the procès verbal. On 20 May 2009 the applicant was arraigned in court and the procès verbal as well as his statement referred to above were produced as evidence against him. During the committal proceedings the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry also collected further evidence including witness testimony and documentary evidence. 14. On 8 July 2010 a bill of indictment was issued against the applicant by the Attorney General. 15. During the criminal proceedings the applicant requested the Criminal Court to refer his complaint regarding the lack of legal assistance during the investigation and questioning to the constitutional jurisdictions. On an unspecified date the court granted the request and referred the case. 16. The applicant claimed a breach of his right to a fair trial on account of the lack of legal assistance during the investigation and questioning. 17. By a judgment of 10 January 2012 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence, opting to take cognisance of the case on the merits despite the fact that the proceedings were still pending, found a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in so far as he had not been assisted by a lawyer when making a statement to the police before he had been charged, and ordered that the Criminal Court take note of this breach in considering all the evidence. It noted that the voluntary nature of the statement, together with the caution as to the right to remain silent, did not suffice to make up for such a failing, when it could not be said what the applicant would have done had he been assisted by a lawyer. 18. Both the Attorney General and the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court. By a judgment of 26 April 2013 the Constitutional Court took cognisance of the merits of the case despite the fact that the proceedings were still pending, and reversed the first-instance judgment. Reiterating its previous findings in other domestic judgments, it noted that the right to legal assistance was not meant to be a formality which, if not complied with, gave the accused a means to defend himself. That right served as a guarantee that every statement made by a person during questioning was made freely, in full knowledge of the right to remain silent, and without threats or promises, violence or other abuse. A breach of the right to a fair trial as a result of a lack of legal assistance during questioning occurred when a statement was taken abusively and without the guarantees of legitimacy, and not solely because of the lack of legal assistance. It followed that the sole fact that the applicant had made a statement, including both admissions of guilt and denials, in the absence of a lawyer could not ipso facto entail a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. In the Constitutional Court’s view, other circumstances such as the particular vulnerability of the individual being questioned had to exist in order to conclude that the absence of legal assistance breached the right to a fair trial. The Constitutional Court could not agree with the first-instance court that Article 6 of the Convention provided for the right to a lawyer without any consideration of the age, maturity and tainted criminal record of the accused as well as the nature of the accusations against him. A correct interpretation of Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008) had to be made in the light of the circumstances of that case, where Mr Salduz had indeed been in a vulnerable position when he had made the statement. The ratio of the right was precisely that, and not to allow a guilty person to go scot-free because of the failure to comply with a formality which lacked any real or grave consequences. The same exceptional and extreme circumstances had been present in other cases decided by the ECtHR such as Panovits v. Cyprus (no. 4268/04, 11 December 2008) and Płonka v. Poland (no. 20310/02, 31 March 2009), and cases decided by the domestic Constitutional Court such as The Police vs Alvin Privitera of 11 April 2011 and The Police vs Esron Pullicino of 12 April 2011. Even in the Salduz case the Court had held that such a violation arose only if the fairness of the trial was compromised. The Court had stated in that context that “Article 6 – especially paragraph 3 thereof – may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions” (§ 50). This, according to the Constitutional Court, was probably the reason why the Grand Chamber had not embraced the more categorical approach suggested by Judge Bratza in his concurring opinion. 19. The Constitutional Court considered that in the present case the applicant had admitted that he had not been pressured into making the statement, and thus there had been nothing illicit and abusive in the taking of such a statement. It followed that the element of vulnerability found in the Salduz case was missing. Moreover, it had not been shown that the applicant had suffered prejudice as a result of the lack of legal assistance to the extent that there was an objective danger that he would not be given a fair trial. 20. In the absence of any such violation, no remedy was required, nor was there any need for the court to examine the appeal entered by the applicant. 21. The applicant’s trial by jury was due to start on 23 October 2013. 22. On 20 September 2013 the applicant filed an application with the Criminal Court requesting it to suspend the trial by jury on the basis of a new set of constitutional proceedings which he had lodged (alleging a violation of Article 7) and on the basis of the proceedings pending before this Court. 23. On 23 September 2013 the Criminal Court acceded to the request.

{'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) Mr Salambek Ireziyev, who was born in 1959, (2) Mr Imaddi Iriziyev (also spelled as Ireziyev), who was born in 1965, (3) Mr Sidyk Ireziyev, who was born in 1967. The first applicant lives in Grozny and the second and third applicants live in Avtury, the Chechen Republic. 6. The applicants are the brothers of Mr Aslan Ireziyev (also spelled as Iriziyev), who was born in 1975. 7. In May 2002 Mr Aslan Ireziyev lived with the second and third applicants and their families in two neighbouring houses in Avtury. At the material time Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov, the applicants’ nephew, was staying together with Mr Aslan Ireziyev. The settlement was under curfew. Checkpoints of the federal forces were functioning on the roads leading to and from Avtury. 8. At about 4 a.m. on 7 May 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 7 May 2003) masked men in camouflage uniforms with machineguns and rubber truncheons arrived in two APCs and a UAZ car in the village. They split in two groups of up to ten persons and broke into the two houses. The men spoke unaccented Russian. They took Mr Aslan Ireziyev and Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov to the backyard, locking the remaining family members inside. Having checked their passports, the men pulled sacks over their heads and put them in one of the APCs. 9. At dawn the applicants, together with the head of the Avtury administration, followed the tracks left by the vehicles. They found that one of the APCs had entered the premises of the Avtury collective farm (совхоз Автуринский), where a Russian military base was located (for the description of the premises see, for example, Dovletukayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 7821/07, 10937/10, 14046/10 and 32782/10, § 25, 24 October 2013 and 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, §§ 138 and 141, 10 October 2013), and the other one had driven in the direction of Shali. The servicemen and the head of the Shali administration denied seeing the vehicles. 10. On 13 May 2002 Mr Salambek Bisultanov, the deputy head of the Shali district department of fight against organised crime, informed the first applicant that Mr Aslan Ireziyev and Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov had been brought to the Main Federal Military Base in Khankala, and promised to arrange their release at 5 p.m. in Argun. At the specified time four camouflaged servicemen brought Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov in a UAZ car. They promised to set Mr Aslan Ireziyev free on the following day, which did not happen. Later Mr Bisultanov told the applicants that he had not managed to obtain Mr Aslan Ireziyev’s release. 11. According to Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov, after the arrest the men took him and Mr Aslan Ireziyev to the Avtury collective farm. There they were handed over to other men, put in a UAZ car and driven away, passing through several roadblocks. At a certain point the men stopped and placed him and Mr Aslan Ireziyev in a cellar. The men introduced themselves as officers of the Special Task Police Unit (the OMON) from St. Petersburg. They questioned them about involvement in illegal armed groups and beat them up. 12. Some time later the applicants learnt that during the night raid of 7 May 2002 the men had killed their neighbour, Mr Sultan Saykhadzhiyev. 13. The applicants have not seen Mr Aslan Ireziyev since his abduction on 7 May 2002. 14. The applicants’ description of the circumtances surrounding the abduction is based on the following statements: the first applicant’s statement dated 2 August 2007, the third applicant’s statement dated 23 April 2007, the statement of Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov dated 2 August 2007, the statement of the applicants’ relatives Ms Z.I. dated 2 August 2007 and Ms L.K. dated 22 April 2007, and the copies of documents from criminal case file no. 3518 opened into the abduction of Mr Aslan Ireziyev. 15. On 8 May 2002 the applicants complained of their brother’s abduction by military servicemen to the head of the Avtury town administration. 16. On 9 May 2002 the applicants complained of their brother’s arrest by military servicemen to the Shali district military commander. 17. On 18 November 2002 the applicants complained of the abduction to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116 stating that Mr Aslan Ireziyev had been detained by their military servicemen. 18. On 22 November 2002 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116 replied to the applicants that they had forwarded requests for information concerning Mr Aslan Ireziyev’s possible arrest and detention to the Chechnya FSB, the Military prosecutor’s office of the UGA (the United Group Alignment) and other law-enforcement agencies. 19. On an unspecified date in November 2002 and then on 25 March 2003 the applicants wrote to the Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya on Human Rights and Freedoms (the Envoy) complaining of their brother’s abduction on 7 May 2002 by military servicemen in two APCs. 20. On 5 April 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA forwarded the applicants’ complaint of Mr Aslan Ireziyev’s abduction by military servicemen to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116 for examination. 21. On 8 July 2003 the applicants complained to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office of their brother’s abduction from home on 7 May 2002 by military servicemen in APCs. 22. On 29 July 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22110. The decision mistakenly stated that the abduction had taken place on 7 May 2003. The applicants were informed of the initiation of the criminal investigation. 23. On 9 August 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. In particular, the applicant stated that the abduction took place on 7 May 2002 and that the abduction had been perpetrated by armed men in uniforms who had arrived in two APCs. 24. On 11 August 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. The decision stated that the abduction had taken place on 7 May 2002. On the same date the first applicant was questioned again. He reiterated his previously given statement, stressed that the abductors had arrived in two APCs and then had taken his brother Mr Aslan Ireziyev to the main military base of the federal forces in Khankala. 25. On 12 August 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 26. On 13 August 2003 the investigators questioned the third applicant and the applicant’s relatives Ms L.N. and Ms Z.I. whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. 27. On 18 August 2003 the Shali district prosecutor instructed the investigators to establish, amongst other things, whether any law enforcement agencies or military structures had carried out a special operation against Mr Aslan Ireziyev. No replies in the positive were received. 28. On 22 September 2003 the investigators questioned the third applicant’s wife Ms L.K. who stated that Mr Aslan Ireziyev had been abducted in May 2002 by military servicemen who had arrived at their household in two APCs, had been of Russian appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. 29. On 22 September 2003 the investigators questioned the applicants’ brothers Mr M.I. and Mr I.I. both of whom also stated that their brother Mr Aslan Ireziyev had been abducted in May 2002 by military servicemen who had arrived in military vehicles. 30. On 22 October 2003 the investigators again questioned the third applicant’s wife Ms L.K. who stated that Mr Aslan Ireziyev had been abducted by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms. 31. On 22 October 2003 the investigators also questioned the third applicant whose statement was similar to that of Ms L.K. 32. On 23 or 27 October 2003 the investigators again questioned the first applicant. No new information was obtained. 33. On 29 October 2003 the criminal proceedings were suspended. The applicants were informed thereof. 34. On 11 May 2005 the supervising prosecutor examined, upon the applicants’ request to this end, the investigation file in criminal case no. 22110 and concluded that the suspension of the investigation on 29 October 2003 was substantiated and lawful. 35. On 19 April 2007 the first applicant complained to the Shali district prosecutor of his brother’s abduction on 7 May 2002 by military servicemen in two APCs and requested that the investigation be resumed and that he be granted access to the case file. 36. On 28 May 2007 the Shali district prosecutor’s office rejected the first applicant’s request stating that there were no grounds to resume the proceedings and that he would be able to access the contents of the case file only upon completion of the investigation. 37. From the documents submitted it follows that the criminal investigation is still pending.

{'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, Mr Matthew O’Donnell, is an Irish national who was born in 1980. He is currently detained at HMP Maghaberry. 6. The applicant has an I.Q. of 62, which is within the bottom 1% of the general population. He has an understanding of spoken English equivalent to that of a six year-old child. 7. On the morning of 13 October 2004, the body of Mr Williamson was found on the banks of the Blackwater River in County Tyrone. 8. The applicant had spent most of the previous day drinking in public with the deceased and a third man, Mr Samuel Houston. There was evidence from witnesses that both Mr Houston and the applicant had been threatening and aggressive towards a number of individuals including the deceased. One witness also stated that, when Mr Houston produced a knife and said he was going to kill the deceased, the applicant encouraged him to “just kill him”. There was also evidence that the applicant and Mr Houston asked the deceased to come out to fight with them after they had been refused admission to a public house. 9. The deceased was last seen alive at around 1:30 a.m. on 13 October 2004 when he, Mr Houston and the applicant were seen making their way to a park area beside the Blackwater River. A post-mortem examination of the deceased revealed that he had been extensively beaten before his death and that he had sustained a number of knife wounds including a severance of the carotid artery. 10. The police searched the flat where the applicant was staying and found two sets of clothes which were heavily stained with the blood of the deceased (two sets of sweatshirts, a pair of blue jeans and pair of beige and navy tracksuit bottoms). The fact that two sets of clothes were found was material to the prosecution’s case that Mr Williamson was killed by two men. One of the items of clothing, namely the beige and navy tracksuit bottoms, had the applicant’s name tag ironed on to the back of the garment. A plastic bag containing a knife was also found at the applicant’s premises. The plastic bag and the knife contained blood which matched the blood of the deceased. Medical evidence indicated that the knife was one that could have been used to inflict the wounds sustained by the deceased. 11. Mr Houston admitted the manslaughter of Mr Williamson and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 12. The applicant was arrested in the Republic of Ireland. He was interviewed by Irish police officers about the death of Mr Williamson. Those interviews were videotaped. He was subsequently extradited to Northern Ireland in April 2007. 13. At the applicant’s trial, the prosecution sought to rely on the interviews which had been conducted in the Republic of Ireland. The applicant challenged the admissibility of those interviews, inter alia on the ground that the proper procedures for interviewing a suspect with a mental handicap had not been followed. A voir dire (that is to say, a hearing to determine the admissibility of the contested evidence) was held, in the course of which evidence was led from clinical psychologists and psychiatrists who had examined the applicant and watched the interview tapes. At the conclusion of the voir dire, the trial judge decided to exclude the interviews from evidence. 14. At the close of the prosecution case, the trial judge rejected a defence submission that there was no case to answer. 15. The defence then applied to the trial judge for a ruling that the applicant’s mental condition made it undesirable for him to be called to give evidence. The effect of a favourable ruling would have been that the jury would not be permitted to draw an adverse inference from any failure of the applicant to give evidence in his own defence (see 28 below). In the course of the trial judge’s consideration of that application, a second voir dire was held, in which further evidence was given by one of the clinical psychologists, Dr Davies. The trial judge refused to allow Dr Davies to give evidence concerning the conclusions he had reached from watching the interview tapes. The trial judge reasoned that, once the interview tapes were excluded from evidence, they were excluded from evidence for all purposes. The trial judge did, however, hear evidence from Dr Davies as to his concern that the applicant’s low I.Q. would place him in considerable difficulty if he were to give evidence in his defence. In Dr Davies’ view, the applicant would be highly suggestible, he would have problems understanding questions and would find it difficult to give coherent responses. 16. In considering the defence application, the trial judge referred to the evidence of Dr Kennedy, consultant psychiatrist. The trial judge read out three passages of her report, the last which was the following: “He [the applicant] reports having had difficulty in comprehending court proceedings in the past as long words are used and people talk at speed. However, if account is taken of his need to have material simply phrased and to allow for adequate consultation with others to ascertain his understanding and clarify where necessary, it is my opinion that he should be capable of following proceedings and actively contributing to them.” 17. Turning to Dr Davies’ evidence, the trial judge noted that Dr Davies had entered a significant reservation in relation to the applicant’s ability to give evidence. Dr Davies had expressed doubts as to whether even in circumstances such as those referred to by Dr Kennedy the applicant could give a coherent account. 18. The trial judge refused the defence application, finding that he could control the manner in which questions would be asked and could ensure that no unfairness would result. In the event that the applicant chose not to give evidence the judge informed the parties that he would give an adverse inference direction to the jury. 19. The applicant elected not to testify but Dr Davies was permitted to give evidence to the jury as to the applicant’s vulnerability and the difficulties he would have faced. 20. The prosecution invited the jury to draw an adverse inference from the applicant’s failure to give evidence. The trial judge’s summing up contained the following direction to the jury: “I have said to you that the defendant has not given evidence and that is his right. He is entitled not to give evidence, to remain silent and to make the prosecution prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Two matters arise from his not giving evidence. The first is that you try this case according to the evidence. You will appreciate that the defendant has not given evidence at this trial to undermine, contradict or explain the evidence put before you by the prosecution. The second matter, as you heard him being told when I addressed Mr McGrory [counsel for the applicant], is that the law is that you may draw such inferences as appear proper from his failure to give evidence. It is for you to decide whether it is proper to hold the defendant’s failure to give evidence against him when deciding whether he is guilty. On the basis of the evidence of Dr Davies, Mr McGrory invites you not to hold it against the defendant that he has not given evidence before you. Dr Davies’s contradicted evidence is that the defendant has an IQ of 62 and therefore is a person of very limited intellectual ability who should be regarded as mentally handicapped. He has the ability of a six year-old to understand spoken English. Dr Davies said that mentally handicapped people find giving evidence very challenging and his ability to provide a coherent and consistent account and to understand the implications of his replies is limited. Dr Davies said that he seems to have difficulty in functioning as an average person and has difficulty in maintaining relationships, keeping a job and performing everyday tasks such as looking after money. Dr Davies’s evidence about the accused and the abilities of mentally handicapped people in general about which I have just reminded you is an important factor to bear in mind, but there are others that you should bear in mind and consider as well. There is no evidence that the defendant is not fit to stand his trial; in other words, it has not been suggested that he cannot understand questions, nor has it been suggested that he cannot instruct his legal advisers as to the nature of his case. It has not been suggested that he is unable to remember what happened that night, indeed, Dr Davies did not ask him to recall the events of that night, so you do not know from what Dr Davies has said to what extent the defendant can explain what he did or where he went, indeed, when he was charged with Mr Williamson’s death he replied, ‘I didn’t go near him’, not, ‘I don’t know anything about it’, or, ‘I didn’t have anything to do with it.’ You have to consider along with many other questions you have to consider whether the answer he gave is not merely a denial of guilt, which it plainly is, but whether it implies that he knows something about the circumstances of Mr Williamson’s death. You should also consider whether the defendant, despite his undoubted handicaps, his low IQ and limited comprehension of English, could have answered questions in the witness box. I say that because Mr McGrory said in his closing remarks to you, ‘What chance would a man like that have in proceedings like this?’ I must tell you that the defence were well aware that had the defendant given evidence the court would have ensured he was treated fairly and given every chance to put his case and in particular that questions were simply phrased and put in such a way that they did not suggest the answer to him. It is not enough that a person would find it difficult to give evidence to excuse them from giving evidence. Many people have to give evidence and find it difficult - even children as young as six. Fortunately, we do not have that very often but it does happen sometimes. Every effort is made to simplify the proceedings and the form of questions to ensure that people like that can give evidence. If you think that because of the evidence of Dr Davies you should not hold it against the defendant that he has not given evidence do not hold it against him, but if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence he relies on, that is, the evidence of Dr Davies, presents no adequate explanation for his absence from the witness box then you may hold his failure to give evidence against him. If you consider that there is no excuse for his not giving evidence what proper inferences - in other words, what conclusions - can you draw from the defendant’s decision not to give evidence before you? You may think that the defendant would have gone into the witness box to give you an explanation or answer to the case against him. If the only sensible explanation for his decision not to give evidence is that he has no answer to the case against him, or none that could have stood up to cross-examination, then it would be open to you to hold against him his failure to give evidence. It is for you to decide whether it is fair to hold that failure against him. In considering that it might be useful for you to consider what sort of questions might the defendant have had to face if he had given evidence.” 21. The trial judge went on to give examples of questions that might have been asked of the defendant had he given evidence before emphasising that the jury should not find him guilty only or mainly because he had not given evidence, but that they might take it into account as some additional support for the prosecution’s case and in deciding whether or not the case made on his behalf was or might be true. 22. The applicant was convicted by the jury and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of twelve years. He appealed against his conviction on three grounds: (i) that the trial judge had erred in not allowing Dr Davies to give evidence concerning the conclusions he had reached from watching the interview tapes; (ii) that the trial judge had erred in rejecting the applicant’s submission that it was undesirable for him to be called to give evidence; and (iii) that the trial judge had failed to direct the jury that they should not draw adverse inferences unless they were satisfied that there was case to answer. 23. On 28 January 2009 an application for leave to appeal was refused by a single judge of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. A renewed application was dismissed by the full court on 15 January 2010. 24. In respect of the first ground of appeal, namely the exclusion of the video evidence, the Court of Appeal accepted that the videotapes were admissible to demonstrate how the applicant expressed himself and to demonstrate that he was suggestible. However, the portion of the videotape on which the applicant had intended to rely did not in fact touch on suggestibility and, in any event, the applicant’s suggestibility was not in dispute between the experts who had testified for the prosecution and defence. Therefore, the omission of the evidence would not have had any material effect on the trial judge’s decision. 25. In respect of the second ground of appeal, namely the ruling under Article 4(1)(b) of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, the Court of Appeal considered that the trial judge had reached his conclusion in a proper and balanced manner and his conclusion was not unreasonable. The Court of Appeal noted that there was competing expert evidence in the case. On the one hand, there was the evidence of Dr Kennedy, a consultant psychiatrist, whose opinion was that the applicant “should be capable of following proceedings and actively contributing to them” if account were taken of his need to have material simply phrased and if he was allowed adequate consultation with others to ascertain his understanding and clarify matters where necessary. On the other, Dr Davies, a clinical psychologist, entered a significant reservation in relation to the applicant’s ability to give evidence. He did not know whether even where the procedures were simplified and the questions simply phrased, the applicant could give a coherent account of events. The Court of Appeal found that there was nothing unreasonable about the manner in which the trial judge preferred the evidence of the consultant psychiatrist over that of the clinical psychologist. 26. For the third ground, which related to the trial judge’s direction on a case to answer, the Court of Appeal recognised that, in England and Wales, trial judges were required to direct juries that they, the jury, had to find that there was a case to answer on the prosecution evidence before drawing an adverse inference (see paragraph 28 below). By contrast, in Northern Ireland, it was left to the judge in each case to decide whether to direct the jury in this manner, depending on the strength of the prosecution case. The Court of Appeal considered that, in the applicant’s case, the absence of such a direction to the jury reflected the trial judge’s view that this was not a case where the evidence was so weak as to require such a direction. The substantial body of evidence against the applicant supported that view. The trial was not, therefore, unfair. The Court of Appeal nonetheless recommended that the specimen direction in Northern Ireland should be amended to follow the approach taken in England and Wales, by adding a direction that the jury should not draw an adverse inference unless they consider that the prosecution case is such that it clearly calls for an answer. 27. The applicant asked the court to certify questions of general public importance for the consideration of the Supreme Court. It refused to do so in a decision handed down on 29 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'}

6. The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Dubrovnik. 7. On 18 February 2003 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Gornji Milanovac ordered V.T. (“the debtor”) to pay to the applicant 2,500 Euros (“EUR”) plus statutory interest on account of debt and 187,750 Serbian dinars (“RSD”), which was approximately EUR 3,028 at the time of the delivery of the judgment, for the costs of the civil proceedings. 8. On 23 August 2003 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Čačak, on appeal, reduced the award in respect of costs to RSD 97,250 (approximately EUR 1,568) and upheld the first-instance judgment for the remainder. 9. The judgment of 18 February 2003, as amended on 23 August 2003, became final on 5 September 2003. 10. On 23 October 2003, at the applicant’s request, the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the judgment by seizure and sale of the debtor’s movable assets. 11. Following three failed attempts at seizure of the debtor’s movable assets, on 21 December 2004 the Municipal Court informed the applicant that the enforcement by seizure and sale of the judgment debtor’s property was impossible due to the debtor’s indigence. 12. On 13 July 2005 the Municipal Court terminated the enforcement proceedings. This decision was quashed on appeal on 24 October 2005 by the Municipal Court. 13. Following a further attempt at seizure of the debtor’s movable assets, on 11 October 2007 the Municipal Court stayed the enforcement proceedings (prekida se postupak izvršenja) because of the debtor’s death in the meantime. 14. On 3 June 2008 the applicant proposed that the enforcement proceedings be continued by seizure and sale of the deceased debtor’s movable and immovable estate. In support of his request, the applicant submitted a court decision of 2 October 2001 by which the debtor and two other persons had previously inherited a house with a plot of land. He also requested the court to appoint a temporary representative for the debtor’s heirs in accordance with Article 32 of the Enforcement Procedure Act. On 20 June 2008 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s request. This decision was quashed on appeal on 27 March 2009 by the Municipal Court. 15. On 16 April 2009 the Municipal Court invited the applicant to provide the names and the addresses of proposed debtors, indicate the debtor’s heirs, propose the means of enforcement and details and proof of ownership concerning immovable assets, all within three days, failing which his request would be rejected. It was further specified that no appeal was allowed against this decision. In the reasoning, the court found that the names and the addresses of the debtor’s potential heirs were available from the decision of 2 October 2001, and that therefore, there was no need for the appointment of a temporary representative. On 8 June 2009, however, the Municipal Court instructed the applicant to advance the costs for a temporary representative within eight days. It was also specified that no appeal was allowed against this decision. 16. On 27 August 2009 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s request for continuation of the enforcement proceedings because of his failure to abide by the orders of 16 April and 8 June 2009. This decision was upheld on appeal on 13 October 2009. 17. According to the Government, there are eight heirs of the deceased debtor, the names and addresses of which have been known.

{'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 Seliște. 6. On 28 November 2012 the applicant was arrested by the police at his home and charged with child trafficking. He was accused of recruiting and travelling with four minors aged from 14 to 17 to Ukraine, where the children did agricultural work. 7. On 30 November 2012 the prosecutor applied to the Centru District Court for a warrant for the applicant’s detention in custody. The reasons relied upon by the prosecutor were that the applicant could abscond from prosecution, interfere with the criminal investigation and reoffend. 8. On the same day the Centru District Court issued an arrest warrant for thirty days’ custody. In court the applicant argued that the allegations made by the prosecutor were not supported by any facts and that no evidence had been submitted by the prosecutor. According to the verbatim record, he explicitly asked for access to the supporting evidence attached to the prosecutor’s request for detention, but was refused. He also submitted medical records which stated that he had two broken ribs and was suffering from post-traumatic pneumonia (see paragraph 17 below); he argued that his state of health required treatment in hospital. The court heard Doctor A., who confirmed the applicant’s assessment of his state of health and that it required hospitalisation because the treatment was difficult and lengthy. The prosecutor and the court accepted the medical records as evidence. The court accepted that the applicant’s state of health required medical treatment, but concluded that such care could also be provided at home. The applicant asked to be released on bail, in response to which the court cited the legal provisions which entitled it to remand in custody a person at risk of absconding and of reoffending. The court concluded that the applicant presented such a risk because he was charged with an exceptionally serious offence. 9. The applicant appealed and argued, inter alia, that the detention order was unlawful under Article 177 (11) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because it lacked reasoning referring to the specific case, and because the court had relied only on suppositions and had ignored the proposed non-custodial alternative. The applicant relied on the provisions of Article 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that, contrary to those provisions, the court had refused to provide his representative with any of the contents of the file other than the prosecutor’s request, and did not generally examine such material. He also argued that his state of health required medical treatment which he had not received in custody. 10. On 6 December 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, relying on the same reasons as the lower court. The court did not reply to any of the contentions made by the applicant in his appeal. 11. On 26 December 2012 the Centru District Court extended the applicant’s detention by thirty days for the same reasons as before. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegations about his health as unsubstantiated, and referred to the previously submitted medical records (see paragraph 8 above) as “some copies of some documents” which could not be accepted as evidence because they did not comply with Article 94 (1) p.6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (they originated from a source unverifiable in court). The court concluded that Prison no. 13 and the Prisons Department in general had special divisions for medical care which could assist the applicant if necessary. 12. The applicant appealed and argued, inter alia, that the decision was unlawful and in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, because it did not explain how the cited legal provisions applied to his case and did not state any reasons for refusing the applicant’s request to be released on bail. He also claimed that the court had refused to give him access to the case file and had only examined the prosecutor’s request, contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He stated that the court had disregarded valid evidence in respect of his state of health, and asked for Doctor A. to be heard again in appellate proceedings. He also stated that he had not received any medical treatment since his arrest. 13. On 11 January 2013 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Centru District Court of 26 December 2012, without answering the points made by the applicant in his appeal. 14. On 22 January 2013 the prosecutor applied for an extension of the applicant’s detention, citing identical reasons to those given previously. However, on 24 January 2013 the Centru District Court refused the request and released the applicant under judicial control. The court found that there was no longer any risk of the applicant’s interfering with the course of the investigation or reoffending, and concluded that the severity of the sanction alone could not justify an extension of his detention. This decision does not appear to have been appealed against. 15. From 28 November to 5 December 2012 the applicant was detained in the detention unit (Izolatorul de detenție provizorie, “the IDP”) of the General Police Headquarters. The applicant was transferred to Prison no. 13 on 5 December 2012 and released from detention on 24 January 2013. 16. The parties dispute the applicant’s medical condition. 17. According to the medical records submitted by the applicant, on 1 October 2012 he was diagnosed with thoracic trauma, two broken ribs and a contusion of the right shoulder after he fell while working. On 23 October 2012 he was diagnosed with post-traumatic bronchopneumonia on the right side, fracture of the fourth and fifth right ribs, sub-febrile condition, chest pain after thoracic trauma, and bilateral tuberculosis lung scars. The doctors recommended the applicant stay in bed, have his ribcage tightly bandaged, and have intra-muscular antibiotic treatment for his pneumonia. 18. At the hearing of 30 November 2012, before the Centru District Court, Doctor A. confirmed the applicant’s diagnosis of post-traumatic pneumonia, and stated that it was her medical opinion that he needed inpatient treatment. She confirmed that previous medical records had not contained a similar recommendation. At the same hearing, the applicant stated that he was in pain and could not sleep because of his broken ribs; he was given pain relief medication on only one occasion while in detention. 19. At the hearing of 26 December 2012 before the Centru District Court, the applicant claimed that he had not been visited by a doctor during the whole period of his detention. 20. A note in the medical records dated 14 December 2012 reconfirmed the diagnosis of post‑traumatic pneumonia and stated that the previously prescribed treatment had not been completed. 21. On 22 December 2012 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the prosecutor about the applicant’s detention conditions in Prison no. 13, and in particular about the lack of medical assistance for his broken ribs and acute pneumonia. It is unclear if he obtained a reply. 22. The Government disputed the applicant’s diagnosis of pneumonia and cited the findings of the Centru District Court on 26 December 2012, which dismissed the medical records submitted by the applicant as non‑compliant with Article 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 11 above). 23. The Government submitted to the Court a medical examination report drawn up upon the applicant’s admission to the IDP on 29 November 2012, according to which the applicant had complained of pain in his right arm and had said he needed pain relief medication twice a day. The examination reported a tuberculosis episode in 2010 and no recent trauma or injuries. 24. An extract from the applicant’s medical record from prison stated that the applicant had been medically examined upon his admission on 5 December 2012; this was when the presumptive diagnosis of tuberculosis lung scars was made. On that occasion the applicant did not report other complaints or previous medical conditions. On 10, 11, 12 and 14 December 2012 the applicant was seen by the prison doctor for tuberculosis recurrence; sputum tested negative for tuberculosis; blood tested negative for syphilis. On 14 December 2012 thoracic microradiography confirmed a bilateral encysted pleurisy (inflammation of the lung lining). The report concluded that there was no active pulmonary tuberculosis and recommended a repeated sputum and microradiography test in six months. 25. The Government submitted that the applicant had never complained about his health, had not presented any medical records, had never requested medical assistance, and asserted that during detention his overall state of health had been satisfactory.

{'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 1967 and lives in Arundel. 5. In 2006 he was convicted of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm. He had a previous conviction for a similar offence against the same victim. A pre-sentencing report identified the Enhanced Thinking Skills (“ETS”) course followed by the Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage It (“CALM”) course as potentially appropriate courses for the applicant to complete during a sentence of imprisonment and explained that attendance at these courses would take around two years. On 23 November 2006 an indeterminate sentence for public protection (“IPP sentence”) was imposed. A minimum term (“tariff”) of fourteen months and twelve days was fixed. 6. The applicant was detained in HMP Lewes. On 20 March 2007 a post‑sentence report by his probation officers confirmed that the ETS and CALM courses were, in principle, appropriate and that completion would take around two years. At a sentence planning board on 31 October 2007, following completion of an assessment using the Offender Assessment System (“OASys”), his targets were identified as: positive use of his time in custody; improved awareness of appropriate behaviour (thinking skills); and completion of a course on Victim Awareness, the latter of which, it was noted, had already been completed. 7. A progress report dated 20 December 2007 noted: “Mr Hall has taken the only opportunities offered to him to address his offending and appears to have modified his attitude, which was a big step for him.” 8. On 4 February 2008 the applicant’s tariff expired. 9. On 15 February 2008 a first Parole Board Review was held. On 21 February 2008 the Parole Board informed the applicant of its decision not to direct his release or recommend his transfer to open conditions. The panel considered that the applicant still posed a high risk to his victim, particularly as the victim had been also been detained in HMP Lewes and the applicant had received an adjudication for assaulting him. In order to address this risk, the applicant was required to complete the ETS course and to be assessed for the CALM course, in closed conditions. The panel continued: “Your supervisors considered that you should be assessed for ETS and Anger Management, but this has not been possible at HMP Lewes, where you are considered to be a polite and respectful Enhanced Prisoner.” 10. The Parole Board referred to the applicant’s submission that he would control himself and avoid the victim in future and that he was prepared to respect non-contact and exclusion zone conditions to secure his release. It concluded: “The Panel accepts without reservation, that your high level of risk relates solely to your involvement with [the victim], but this is a risk which cannot be ignored, despite your determination to avoid him. Any such involvement is a real concern and cannot be ignored. It is the view of the Panel, having taken into account the varying views of your supervisors, that prior to your release you should have the opportunity to carry out all outstanding offending behavior work, namely ETS and to be assessed for CALM, and that the appropriate place for this to be done, is in Closed Conditions.” 11. On 5 March 2008 the Secretary of State approved the Parole Board’s recommendation and set the review period at eighteen months to complete outstanding offender behaviour work, with a hearing to take place in August 2009. 12. On 16 April 2008 the applicant was transferred to HMP Erlestoke. His targets were reviewed with his offender supervisor and on 25 April 2008, after a review of an initially negative decision, he was referred for assessments for the ETS and CALM courses and the Healthy Relationships Programme (“HRP”). 13. In May 2008, the applicant was deemed suitable to progress to the second stage of the assessment for the ETS course. 14. In the applicant’s Sentence Planning and Review Report dated 30 June 2008, prepared by his offender manager, it was recorded that he was to be assessed for and, if suitable, complete the ETS and CALM courses and the HRP. The report added as regards the HRP: “I am also of the opinion that consideration needs to be given to completing this work in the community as a condition of his licence because the waiting list is extremely long.” 15. At a sentence planning and review meeting on 14 August 2008, the applicant’s sentence targets recorded that he should be assessed for and complete the ETS and CALM courses and the HRP programme. It was noted that he required extra psychological assessment as he appeared to be afraid of participating in group activities, which might hinder his eventual participation in the courses recommended to him. 16. A report of an interview with his offender supervisor dated 20 January 2009 notes: “When the question of his current sentence plan targets was raised, he stated that he would not do any of the courses as he hates classrooms and he will not be forced into doing them. When it was explained that this attitude would make it extremely difficult for him to make any progress in his sentence and through the prison system, he stated that he did not care and would stay here ‘for thirty years’ ... Mr Hill did not want to discuss any of his specific sentence plan targets with me and this is clearly an area that needs to be addressed in order for him to progress.” 17. In his Parole Assessment Report of 27 January 2009, the applicant’s offender manager stated that she could not support the applicant’s release because at that stage he had not undertaken any work to address his behaviour. She noted his resistance to offending programmes and reported that it was “absolutely imperative” that arrangements be made for him to be psychologically assessed, adding: “Mr Hill faces the potential of being left serving an IPP sentence with no means of working towards his release.” 18. She further noted that she had made enquiries at the prison as to whether the applicant might undergo psychological assessment but that the chances of this occurring were seen as slight. She stated that if this was not available at his current institution, the applicant would need to be moved to a facility where it could be undertaken. 19. In February 2009 the applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board. 20. A Sentence Planning and Review Report dated 2 February 2009 recorded the applicant’s refusal to engage with his sentence plan targets to reduce his risk. It recommended that the ETS, CALM and HRP courses be undertaken in closed conditions and that counselling be provided. 21. On 5 February 2009 the applicant confirmed that he was prepared to do the ETS course in a one-to-one basis. 22. On 28 April 2009 he met with the ETS facilitators and on 29 April was notified that he had been identified as a potential participant of the ETS course scheduled to begin on 13 May 2009. 23. The applicant was duly enrolled on the May 2009 ETS course. He completed the course in June 2009. A post-programme review took place on 11 August 2009. 24. The applicant was subsequently informed by his probation officer that there was a two-year wait for access to the CALM course. 25. On an unknown date the Parole Board hearing scheduled for August 2009 was deferred to November 2009 in order to allow for the completion of the post-ETS course report. It was subsequently deferred again until 9 February 2010. 26. Meanwhile, at some point in 2009 or 2010, the applicant was assessed for the HRP and was found to be unsuitable. 27. On 29 January 2010 the applicant’s solicitors informed the Parole Board that they had commissioned an independent psychologist’s report on the applicant and that it might not be completed by the time of the scheduled hearing. As a result, on 1 February 2010 the Parole Board Panel Chair issued directions deferring the hearing and imposing deadlines for the provision of the psychiatric report (9 March) and any report in response by the Secretary of State (8 June). The target month for the hearing was September 2010. 28. The independent psychology report was completed on 7 February 2010 and filed with the Parole Board on 9 March 2010. The report supported the applicant’s release on licence into the community. It explained that the applicant had tried to complete his treatment goals but that his fear of group settings combined with his low IQ had made this very difficult. It further stated: “5.1 I strongly recommend irrespective of the outcome of any future Parole Board hearing that Mr Hill receives one-to-one counselling as a matter of urgency... 5.3 There has been much debate regarding Mr Hill’s need for further treatment and indeed his ability to benefit from such treatment. In my opinion a prerequisite for deciding the issue is that Mr Hill undergo further cognitive and/or psychoneurological assessment.” 29. In an addendum to the report dated 14 May 2010, it was noted that the applicant was not capable of benefitting from group work but was fully capable of one-to-one coursework. 30. The prison was not notified that a report was required until 20 July 2010. Because of other reporting commitments, it informed the parties that it would be unable to deliver the necessary report before May 2011. 31. The Parole Board hearing was subsequently further deferred until 13 January 2011. 32. In an addendum to the Sentence Planning and Review Report, the applicant’s offender supervisor explained: “There have been problems getting Mr Hill assessed for the CALM course, some of which relate to his reluctance to participate and others due to issues relating to availability of staff.” 33. On 10 January 2011 the applicant was informed that his Parole Board hearing had been cancelled because the applicant’s offender supervisor was unable to attend and that the earliest possible date for the hearing would be March 2011. 34. The deferred Parole Board hearing took place on 19 April 2011. By letter dated 28 April 2011, the Parole Board noted that the applicant had not cooperated with a prison transfer to allow him to be assessed for the CALM course and that he appeared to prioritise his work over addressing his areas of risk. The Parole Board further noted that the applicant was still, five years into his sentence, providing new and important background to the motivations and triggers for his violence. It said that this had limited the assessment of his risk factors. 35. The applicant subsequently sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision not to recommend his transfer to open conditions. On 21 January 2012 the Administrative Court granted the judicial review application on the basis that the panel had failed to carry out the correct balancing exercise when considering whether to accede to the applicant’s request for a transfer to open conditions. The Parole Board was instructed to reconsider this aspect of the applicant’s case. 36. The applicant subsequently undertook the CALM course and completed it in October 2011. 37. The Parole Board held an oral hearing on 13 April 2012. By letter dated 4 May 2012, it directed the applicant’s release. He was released on 15 May 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'}

6. The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Rome. 7. The twenty-seventh G8 Summit took place in Genoa on 19, 20 and 21 July 2001 under the chairmanship of Italy. 8. In the run-up to the Summit a large number of non-governmental organisations had set up a coordinating group known as the Genoa Social Forum (“GSF”) with a view to organising an “anti-globalisation” Summit in Genoa during the same dates (see Final Report of the Parliamentary inquiry into the events during the Genoa G8 Summit (see “Final Rapport of the Parliamentary Inquiry”), pp. 7-18). 9. Since the meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in November 1999, such demonstrations by the “anti-globalisation” movement have been organised during inter-State summits and meetings of international institutions on different aspects of global governance. They have sometimes been accompanied by acts of vandalism and clashes with the police (ibid.). 10. Law No. 349 of 8 June 2000 (“Law No. 349/2000”) had assigned the task of organising the preliminary meetings and the Final Summit of the Heads of State and Government scheduled for July 2001 to a plenipotentiary body set up within the Prime Minister’s Office. Several meetings were attended by representatives of the GSF, the Head of the plenipotentiary body, the Prefect of Genoa, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and local authority representatives (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, pp. 18-21). 11. Substantial security measures were put in place by the Italian authorities (see Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 12, ECHR 2011). Under section 4(1) of Law no. 149 of 8 June 2000, the prefect of Genoa was authorised to deploy military personnel. In addition, the part of the city where the G8 were meeting (the historic centre) was designated as a “red zone” and cordoned off by means of a metal fence. As a result, only residents and persons working in the area were allowed access. Access to the port was prohibited and the airport was closed to traffic. The red zone was contained within a yellow zone, which in turn was surrounded by a white (normal) zone. 12. According to the information garnered by the Genoa police department up to July 2001 (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, p. 23), the various groups expected to take part in the demonstrations were broken down into various blocs depending on the danger they posed: the non-dangerous “Pink Bloc”; the “Yellow Bloc” and the “Blue Bloc”, which were deemed to comprise persons likely to vandalise property, set up street and railway blockades and cause confrontations with the police; and lastly, the “Black Bloc”, which embraced several anarchist groups and more broadly, demonstrators dressed in black and wearing masks and balaclavas who had systematically wreaked havoc during other summits. 13. On 19 July 2001 two demonstrations took place during the day without incident. Disorder occurred during the evening (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, p. 25). 14. On 20 July several demonstrations had been announced for various areas of the city, and rallies were scheduled for specific squares (“piazze tematiche”) (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, pp. 25-27). 15. On the morning of 20 July the Black Bloc sparked numerous incidents and clashes with law-enforcement officers, and ransacked banks and supermarkets (see Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, § 17). Marassi Prison was attacked and a number of police stations were vandalised (see Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, § 134, and Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, p. 26). 16. The Black Bloc sparked similar incidents while the Tute Bianche, a group broadly belonging to the “Yellow Bloc”, were marching along Via Tolemaide. Tear gas was fired on the Tute Bianche demonstrators by carabinieri, who charged forward, making use of their truncheons and non-regulation batons. The demonstrators split up, though some of them responded to the attack by throwing hard objects at the law-enforcement officers; armoured vehicles belonging to the carabinieri drove up at high speed, knocking down the barriers erected by the demonstrators and forcing the demonstrators to leave. Clashes between demonstrators and law-enforcement officers continued in the adjacent areas (see Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, §§ 17-20, 126-127 and 136). 17. Similar clashes occurred at around 3 pm in Piazza Manin (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, p. 26). 18. At around 3.20 pm, during a clash in Piazza Alimonda, Carlo Giuliani, a young demonstrator, was hit by a shot fired from a jeep of carabinieri attempting to escape the demonstrators (see Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, §§ 21-25). 19. On 21 July the final anti-globalisation demonstration took place, attended by some 100,000 persons (see Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, § 114). 20. The looting and unlawful damage began in the morning and continued all day throughout the city. In the early afternoon the march ran into a group of some one hundred individuals facing the security forces. Further clashes ensured, with the security forces firing tear gas and charging the crowd, also involving the orderly demonstrators (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, pp. 27-28). 21. During the two days of incidents several hundred demonstrators and members of the security forces were injured or suffered from the effects of tear gas. Whole districts of the city of Genoa were laid waste. 22. On the morning of 21 July 2001 the Head of Police ordered Prefect A., Deputy Head of Police and Head of the plenipotentiary body, to assign the task of searching the Paul Klee School to Mr M.G., Head of the CID Central Operational Department (the “SCO”) (see judgment no. 1530/2010 of the Genoa Court of Appeal of 18 May 2010 (the “appeal judgment”), p. 194). Some twenty individuals were arrested following that operation, but they were immediately released by order of the prosecution or the investigating judge (see appeal judgment, p. 196). 23. It transpires from Prefect A.’s statements to the Genoa Court that the order issued by the Head of Police was explicable by his desire to move on to a more “incisive” phase involving arrests of suspects in order to dispel any impression that the police had remained inert vis-à-vis the looting and unlawful damage perpetrated in the city. The Head of Police had wanted to set up large-scale joint patrols directed by officers from the mobile units and the SCO and coordinated by trusted officers, with a view to stopping the Black Bloc (see judgment no. 4252/08 delivered by the Genoa Court on 13 November 2008 and deposited on 11 February 2009 (the “first-instance judgment”), p. 243; see also judgment no. 38085/12 of the Court of Cassation of 5 July 2012, deposited on 2 October 2012 (the “Court of Cassation judgment”), pp. 121‑122). 24. At 7.30 pm on 21 July M.G. ordered M.M., Head of the Genoa General Investigations and Special Operations Department (DIGOS) to second officers from his unit in order to from joint patrols with other officers from the Genoa mobile unit and the SCO (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, p. 29). 25. The Genoa Municipal Council had provided the GSF and other bodies with access to the premises of two adjacent schools in Via Cesare Battisti in order to install a multimedia centre. In particular, the Diaz-Pascoli School (“Pascoli”) accommodated a press unit and temporary lawyers’ offices, while the Diaz-Pertini School housed an Internet access point. Following thunderstorms over the city which had hampered access to some camping sites, the Municipality had authorised the use of the Diaz-Pertini School as a night accommodation centre for demonstrators. 26. On 20 and 21 July, residents in the area reported to the police that young people dressed in black had gone into the Diaz-Pertini School and taken materiel from the site linked to the ongoing works in the school. 27. Early in the evening of 21 July one of the joint patrols proceeded along Via Cesare Battisti, sparking a heated verbal reaction from dozens of persons standing outside the two schools. An empty bottle was thrown at the police vehicles (see first-instance judgment, pp. 244-249, and Court of Cassation judgment, p. 122). 28. On their return to the police station, the police officers who had headed the patrol recounted the events at a meeting called by the most senior police officials (including Prefect A., Prefect L.B., Police Commissioner C. and M.G.). 29. Having contacted the GSF official to whom the Diaz-Pertini School had been assigned, the police decided to conduct a search of the premises in order to secure evidence and possibly arrest the Black Bloc members responsible for the unlawful damage. Having discussed and dismissed the idea of bombarding the school with tear gas, they agreed on the following modus operandi: a police unit made up essentially of officers belonging to a division specialising in anti-riot operations who had benefited from ad hoc training (the VII Nucleo antisommossa operating within the Rome mobile unit) was to “secure” the building; another unit would carry out the search; lastly, a carabinieri unit would surround the building to prevent suspects escaping. The Head of Police was also informed about the operation (see first-instance judgment, pp. 226 and 249-252, and Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, pp. 29-31). 30. Late in the evening a large number of police officers from various units and departments left the Genoa police station for Via Cesare Battisti (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, ibid.). According to the Court of Cassation judgment, the total number of officers participating in the operation was “approximately 500 police officers and carabinieri, the latter being responsible exclusively for encircling the building”. The appeal judgment (p. 204) pointed out that that figure had never been precisely substantiated. 31. At around twelve midnight the members of the VII Nucleo antisommossa, having arrived close to both schools with helmets, shield and tonfa-type truncheons, together with other similarly equipped officers, began to run towards the premises. A journalist and a municipal councillor standing outside the schools were kicked and struck with batons (see first-instance judgment, pp. 253-261). 32. Some of the persons occupying the Diaz-Pertini School who had been outside re-entered the building and closed the gates and entrance doors, attempting to block them with school benches and wooden planks. The police officers assembled in front of the gate, which they forced open with an armoured vehicle after unsuccessful attempts to shoulder-charge them. Finally, the aforementioned police unit broke down the entrance doors (ibid.). 33. The officers invested all the floors of the building, many of them in complete darkness. With, in most cases, their faces concealed by scarves, they began to punch, kick and club the occupiers, shouting threats at their victims. Groups of officers even struck seated or prostrate persons. Some of those who had been awakened by the noise were struck while still in their sleeping bags, while others were assaulted while holding their hands up as a sign of capitulation or showing their identity documents. Some of the occupiers attempted to escape and hide in the school toilets or lumber-rooms, but they were caught and beaten up, and some of them were hauled out of their hiding places by the hair (see first-instance judgment, pp. 263-280, and appeal judgment, pp. 205-212). 34. The applicant, who was sixty-two years of age at the material time, was on the ground floor. Having been awakened by the noise, when the police arrived he sat down against the wall beside a group of persons with his arms in the air (see first-instance judgment, pp. 263-265 and 313). He was mainly struck on the head, arms and legs, whereby the blows caused multiples fractures: fractures of the right ulna, the right styloid, the right fibula and several ribs. According to the applicant’s statement in the Genoa Court, the healthcare staff who arrived at the school after the violence had subsided attended to him last, despite hiss cries for help. 35. The applicant was operated on at the Galliera hospital in Genoa, where he remained for four days, and then a few years later, at the Careggi hospital in Florence. He was granted over forty days’ unfitness for work. The aforementioned injuries left him with a permanent weakness in his right arm and leg (see first-instance judgment, pp. XVII and 345). 36. Shortly after the storming of the Diaz-Pertini School, a police unit stormed the Pascoli School, where journalists were filming events both outside and inside the Diaz-Pertini School. A radio station was broadcasting the events live. 37. When the police officers arrived the journalists were forced to stop filming and broadcasting. Cassettes containing the reports filmed over the three days of the Summit were seized and the GSF lawyers’ hard disks were seriously damaged (see first-instance judgment, pp. 300-310). 38. After the storming of the Diaz-Pertini School the security forces emptied the occupiers’ rucksacks and other luggage without attempting to identify their owners or to explain the nature of the operation under way. They wrapped some of the items collected in a black flag in the school gymnasium. During that operation, some of the occupiers were taken to the gymnasium and forced to sit or lie down (see first-instance judgment, pp. 285-300). 39. The ninety-three persons occupying the school were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit unlawful damage and destruction. 40. Most of them were taken to hospitals in the city. Some were immediately transferred to the Bolzaneto barracks. 41. During the night from 21 to 22 July the Head of the Italian police press unit, who was interviewed close to the schools, stated that during the search of the premises the police had found black clothing and balaclavas similar to those used by the Black Bloc. He added that the numerous bloodstains in the building had stemmed from injuries sustained by most of those occupying the Diaz-Pertini School during clashes with the police the previous day (see first-instance judgment, pp. 170-172). 42. The next day, at the Genoa police station, the police showed the press the items seized during the search, including two Molotov cocktails. They also showed the uniform of an official who had taken part in the storming of the Diaz-Pertini School, displaying a clean cut which might have been caused by a knife (ibid.). 43. The prosecution against the occupiers on charges of conspiracy to commit unlawful damage and destruction, serious or aggravated résistance to the police and the unlawful carrying of weapons led to the acquittal of all concerned. 44. The Genoa public prosecutor’s office initiated an investigation to ascertain the facts underlying the decision to storm the Diaz-Pertini School and to shed light on the methodology of the operation, the alleged knife attack on one of the officers and the discovery of the Molotov cocktails, as well as the events that had occurred in the Pascoli School. 45. In December 2004, after some three years of investigations, twenty-eight police officers and officials were committed for trial. Two further sets of proceedings concerning three other officers were subsequently joined to the initial proceedings. 46. The applicant had claimed damages at the preliminary hearing on 3 July 2004. A total number of 119 parties claiming damages, including dozens of Italians and foreigners who had occupied both schools, as well as trade unions and other non-governmental associations, came to a. 47. Those proceedings concerned the events in the Diaz-Pertini School, where the applicant had been accommodated (see paragraphs 31-34 above), and the events in the Pascoli School (see paragraphs 36 and 37 above). They involved hearing more than 300 individuals, both defendants and witnesses (including many foreigners), two expert opinions and the viewing of a great deal of audio-visual materiel. 48. The charges relating to the events in the Diaz-Pertini School were as follows: giving false information for inclusion in a document, simple and aggravated slander, misfeasance in public office (particularly on account of the unlawful arrest of the persons occupying the buildings), simple and aggravated bodily harm and unlawful carrying of weapons of war. a) Trial at first instance 49. By judgment no. 4252/08 of 13 November 2008, deposited on 11 February 2009, the Genoa Court found twelve of the accused guilty of providing false information (one accused), simple slander (two accused) and aggravated slander (one accused), simple and aggravated bodily harm (ten accused) and the unlawful carrying of weapons of war (two accused). The court sentenced them to between two and four imprisonment, a prohibition of holding public office for the period of the main sentence and, jointly and severally with the Ministry of the Interior, payment of costs and expenses and of damages to the parties claiming the latter, to whom the court awarded advances of between 2,500 and 50,000 euros (EUR). The applicant, in particular, was awarded an advance of EUR 35,000, which was paid in July 2009 following an attachment. 50. In determining the main sentences the court had regard to the mitigating circumstances that the perpetrators of the offences had no criminal records and that they had acted in a state of stress and fatigue. One of the convicted persons was granted a conditional suspension of sentence, whereby the court ordered that the conviction should not appear on his criminal record. Furthermore, pursuant to Law No. 241 of 29 July 2006 laying down the conditions for remission of sentence (indulto), ten of the convicted persons were granted total remission of the main sentences, and one of them, who had been given a four-year prison sentence, was granted a three-year remission. 51. In the reasons for the judgment (373 pages of a total of 527), the court first of all rejected the argument that the operation had been planned from the outset as a punitive expedition against the demonstrators. It accepted that the security forces might reasonably have thought, in the light of the events preceding the storming of the buildings (particularly the information provided by local residents and the attack on the patrol during the afternoon of 21 July – see paragraphs 26-27 above), that there were also members of the Black Bloc in the Diaz-Pertini School. It held, however, that the events at issue constituted a clear violation of the law, “of human dignity and of respect for the individual” (di ogni principio di umanità e di rispetto delle persone). The court considered that even in confronting members of the Black Bloc, the security forces were allowed to force inasmuch as the latter was necessary in order to overcome violent resistance from the persons occupying the buildings, subject to proportionality between the resistance encountered and the means used. According to the court neither the applicant nor, for instance, a slightly built young woman who had also been present could have put up such resistance as to justify the blows which they had received, causing bruising and fractures. 52. The court also emphasised that the prosecution had not requested the committal for trial of the actual perpetrators of the violence on account of the difficulty of identifying them, and that the police had not cooperated effectively. It noted in that connection that the prosecution had been provided with old photographs of the officers accused and that it had taken seven years to identify one particularly violent officer – filmed during the storming of the buildings – even though he had been easily recognisable by his hairstyle. 53. In its assessment of the individual responsibility of the accused, the court held that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the perpetrators had acted in the conviction that their superiors tolerated their acts. The fact that some officers and officials who had been in situ right from the beginning of the operation had not stepped in immediately to halt the violence had encouraged the officers of the VII Nucleo antisommossa and the other members of the security forces in their actions. The Court therefore took the view that only those senior officials could be considered guilty of aiding and abetting the offence of causing bodily harm. 54. The court then considered the prosecution argument that the security forces had produced false evidence and recounted fictitious events with a view to justifying, a posteriori, both the search of the premises and the acts of violence. 55. As regards the behaviour of the persons occupying the buildings before the police stormed them, the court observed that the video recordings added to the case file had not shown them throwing any large objects from the building, but that it might be considered, according to the statements of a witness and the attitude of the police officers, who had been filmed with their shields raised above their heads, that a number of small objects (coins, bolts, etc.) had probably been thrown at the officers while they had been attempting to break down the entrance door to the school. 56. As regards the alleged knife attack on an officer, the court, drawing on the results of the expert opinion prepared on that officer’s behaviour and the evidence at its disposal, observed that it could neither find that that attack had actually taken place nor preclude the possibility that it had in fact occurred. 57. Moreover, the court noted that the two Molotov cocktails shown to the press on 22 July had been found by the police in the city during the afternoon of 21 July and subsequently brought, at the behest of the Deputy Police Commissioner of Genoa, to the schoolyard towards the end of the search of the premises, and that they had ended up, under obscure circumstances, mingled with the items that had been gathered together in the gymnasium. 58. Finally, the court considered that the police report on the operation contained a misleading description of the facts, because it stated that all those occupying the school had resisted violently and glossed over the fact that most of them had been injured by the security forces. b) The appeal judgment 59. The accused, the prosecutor’s office with the Genoa Court, the Principal State Prosecutor, the Ministry of the Interior (which was civilly liable) and most of the victims, including the applicant, all appealed to the Genoa Court of Appeal against the first-instance judgment. By judgment no. 1530/10 of 18 May 2010, filed on 31 July 2010, the court of appeal altered the challenged judgment. 60. The Court of Appeal found the accused guilty of the following offences: providing false information (seventeen accused), aggravated bodily harm (nine accused) and the unlawful carrying of weapons of war (one accused). It imposed prison sentences on them of between three years and eight months and five years and prohibited them from holding public office for five years. Pursuant to Law No. 241 of 29 July 2006, all those convicted were given the benefit of a three-year remission of sentence. 61. Since the limitation period for offences of aggravated slander (in the case of fourteen accused), abuse of public authority on account of the unlawful arrest of the persons occupying the Diaz-Pertini School (twelve accused) and simple bodily harm (nine accused) had elapsed, the Court of Appeal discontinued proceedings against them. The proceedings against the Head of the VII Nucleo antisommossa, who had been convicted at first instance for causing aggravated bodily harm, were also discontinued on account of mitigating circumstances. Finally, the Court of Appeal acquitted a person accused of simple slander and unlawful carrying of a weapon of war and another person accused of simple slander. 62. Most of the sentences involving payment of damages and costs and expenses as passed at first instance were upheld in substance, and, at the appeal level, the accused persons who had been convicted for the first time were also held civilly liable. 63. In the reasons for the judgment (120 pages of a total of 313), the Court of Appeal firstly pointed out that even if the suspicions concerning weapons used by the Black Bloc members during their looting could, in principle, have justified searching the schools, there was nevertheless scant evidence that all the persons occupying the two schools were armed and could be considered as belonging to the Black Bloc. 64. The Court of Appeal further stated that several factors demonstrated that the operation had in no way been geared to identifying the members of the Black Bloc and had been quite different in nature. 65. First of all, right from the planning stages of the “search” the senior police officials had allegedly specified that the VII Nucleo antisommossa and other heavily armed officers would be in the front line of the security forces; those units had not been given any precise instructions concerning the use of force against those occupying the school, their sole task being to “secure” (mettere in sicurezza) the building. 66. Secondly, even those individuals who had been outside the Diaz-Pertini School and had not put up the least resistance had been immediately attacked by the security forces. 67. Thirdly, the security forces had launched their assault by breaking down the doors without attempting to negotiate with the occupiers, explaining that a “non-violent search” was to be carried out, or to induce them voluntarily to open the door, which, according to the Court of Appeal, they had justifiably closed. On entry into the building the officers had systematically beaten those inside in a cruel and sadistic manner, inter alia using non-regulation batons. According to the Court of Appeal, the traces of blood to be seen on the photographs taken during the inspection of the premises had been fresh and could only have stemmed from the above-mentioned violence, contrary to the “shameful contention” (vergognosa tesi) that they had been the result of injuries sustained during the clashes which had occurred over the previous days. 68. In the light of those factors the Court of Appeal concluded that the aim of the whole operation had been to carry out a large number of arrests, even in the absence of any judicial purpose, the main thing being to remedy a media image of a powerless police force. The most senior officials of the security forces had therefore surrounded the VII Nucleo antisommossa with a heavily armed unit equipped with tonfa-type truncheons capable of dealing lethal blows, and that unit have been exclusively instructed to neutralise the persons occupying the Diaz-Pertini School, stigmatising them as dangerous troublemakers who had caused all the unlawful damage of the previous few days. The violent and coordinated action of all the officers who had participated in the operation had been the logical consequence of the instructions given. 69. Therefore, according to the Court of Appeal, all the most senior officials of the VII Nucleo antisommossa, as a minimum, had been guilty of causing the injuries inflicted on the persons occupying the buildings. As regards the higher-ranking police officers, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the decision not to request their committal for trial had impeded proper assessment of their criminal responsibility. 70. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal held that once the decision to storm the building and make the arrests had been taken, the security forces had attempted to justify their action a posteriori. 71. In that connection the Court of Appeal noted that during the investigation the persons occupying the school had been attributed responsibility for offences which they had not committed: the investigation had in no way shown that the occupiers had resisted the security forces or that they had thrown objects at them while standing in the schoolyard, whereby some of the officers had probably raised their shields merely as a precaution; and above all, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the alleged knife attack on an officer during the storming of the building had proven to be a “bare-faced lie”. 72. The Court of Appeal further noted that the most senior officials in the security forces who were present in situ, had decided to place both the Molotov cocktails that had been found elsewhere during the afternoon among the items collected during the search, with a view to justifying the decision to conduct the search and to arrest the persons occupying the school. The Court of Appel took the view that since the arrests had been devoid of any factual or legal basis, they had been unlawful. 73. In determining the appropriate sentences, the Court of Appeal found that apart from the Head of the VII Nucleo antisommossa, who had attempted to limit the violence and had finally admitted the offences during the proceedings, no mitigating circumstances could be acknowledged in respect of the other accused. Having regard to the applicant’s statements, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the members of the security forces had turned into “violent thugs” indifferent to any physical vulnerability bound up with sex and age and to any sign of capitulation, even on the part of persons who had just been abruptly awakened by the noise of the attack. Moreover, the officers had compounded the violence with threats and insults. In doing so they had discredited Italy in the eyes of the international community. Moreover, once the violence had been perpetrated, the security forces advanced a whole series of fabricated “facts” implicating the occupiers. In the Court of Appeal’s opinion, the systematic and coordinated nature of the act of violence committed by the police officers and the aforementioned attempts to justify them a posteriori constituted a deliberate, concerted effort rather than a state of stress and fatigue. 74. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact the whole impugned operation had originated in the instruction from the Head of Police to carry out arrests and that the accused had therefore clearly acted under the psychological pressure of that instruction, the Court of Appeal determined the sentences on the basis of the minimum penalty laid down in criminal law for each of the offences in question. c) Court of Cassation Judgment 75. The accused, the State Prosecutor with the Genoa Court of Appeal, the Ministry of the Interior (which was civilly liable) and some of the victims, appealed on points of law against the appeal judgment; the applicant and other victims claimed civil damages in those proceedings. 76. By judgment no. 38085/12 of 5 July 2012, deposited on 2 October 2012, the Court of Cassation essentially upheld the impugned judgment, although it declared the offence of aggravated bodily harm for which ten of the accused had been convicted at first instance and nine at second instance (see paragraphs 49 and 60 above). 77. In its grounds of judgment (71 pages of a total of 186), the Court of Cassation first of all examined the objection as to the constitutionality of Article 157 of the Criminal Code on statute-barring of criminal offences as submitted by the State Prosecutor under Article 3 of the Convention and, secondarily, under Article 117 § 1 of the Constitution. It observed that – as the first- and second-instance decisions had noted, in a finding which had never in fact been contested – “the violence perpetrated by the police during their storming of the Diaz-Pertini school [had been] egregious”. The “utmost gravity” of the police conduct stemmed from the fact that the widespread violent acts committed throughout the school premises had been unleashed against individuals who were obviously unarmed, sleeping or sitting with their hands up; it was therefore a case of “unjustified violence [which], as rightly pointed out by the State Prosecutor, [was carried out] for punitive purposes, for retribution, geared to causing humiliation and physical and mental suffering on the part of the victims”. According to the Court of Cassation, the violence might have qualified as “torture” under the terms of the Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment or else as “inhuman or degrading treatment” under Article 3 of the Convention. 78. The Court of Cassation noted that in the absence of an explicit criminal offence within the Italian legal system, the impugned violent acts had been prosecuted on the basis of simple or aggravated bodily harm, which offences, pursuant to Article 157 of the Criminal Code, had been the subject of a discontinuance decision on the ground that the limitation period had expired during the proceedings. It noted that that had been why the State Prosecutor had complained of the contradiction between the regulations on the statute-barring of the criminal offences laid down in Article 157 of the Criminal Code – inasmuch as that provision did not include ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention among the offences not subject to limitation – and in Article 3 of the Convention, which, in accordance with the Court’s well-established case-law, required the imposition of appropriate penalties on ill-treatment and therefore impeded the limitation of offences or criminal proceedings in cases of ill-treatment. Nevertheless, the Court of Cassation considered that a change in the rules on limitation as envisaged by the State Prosecutor lay outside the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court because, under Article 25 of the Italian Constitution, only the law could establish offence and criminal penalties. 79. As regards the convictions for offence of bodily harm, the Court of Cassation, having reiterated the events preceding the impugned police storming of the school (see paragraphs 25-30 above), considered logical the Court of Appeal’s finding that the instruction from the Head of Police to carry out arrests had, right from the outset, “militarised” the search operation which the police was to conduct in the school. The Court of Cassation held that the very large number of officers and the lack of instructions regarding alternatives to a tear-gas assault on the school (see paragraph 29 above) and regarding the use of force against the occupiers, among other factors, showed that that operation had not been designed as a peaceful search of the premises. The operational methods used had caused virtually all the persons occupying the school to be beaten up, which explained the Court of Cassation’s upholding of the responsibility, inter alia, of the officials heading the VII Nucleo antisommossa. First of all, the latter had given no instructions on how the building was to be “secured” and had at no stage informed the officers of the possible presence of harmless individuals; secondly, they had not prevented the attacks on persons standing outside the building, the violent storming of the school and the assault on the persons occupying the premises. In conclusion, as the Court of Appeal had rightly found, those officials had been aware that violence was inherent in that type of operation. The Court of Cassation noted, however, that even the offences of aggravated bodily harm had become statute-barred on 3 August 2010 by dint of scheduling, the calculation criteria and the interruptions of proceedings provided for in Articles 157 et seq. of the Criminal Code as amended by Law No. 251 of 5 December 2005. 80. The Court of Cassation also upheld the findings of the appeal judgment as regards the offences of providing false information, slander and unlawful carrying of weapons of war perpetrated in the framework of a “disgraceful whitewashing operation” in order to justify a posteriori the violence perpetrated in the school and the arrest of those occupying it. The Court of Cassation noted that the persons occupying the school had not put up any résistance either before the entrance door had been broken down or inside the premises, and also that the occupiers had not been in possession of Molotov cocktails, which had been brought into the school from the outside by the police. Therefore, the Court of Cassation declared mendacious the police reports to the contrary and slanderous the conspiracy charges levelled against the occupiers. As regards the conclusions of the appeal judgment concerning the alleged knife attack on an officer, the Court of Cassation merely specified the sentence passed on two officers convicted of providing this false information (three years and five months, as indicated in the reasons given for the appeal judgment, rather than three years and eight months as indicated in the operative part). Finally, it passed a sentence of three years and three months on one of the convicted officers for providing false information, on account of the limitation on the offence of aggravated bodily harm and the resultant inapplicability of the calculation criterion laid down in Article 81 of the Criminal Code because of the continuous nature of the offences. 81. The charges levelled against officers for the events in the Pascoli School concerned arbitrary search and damage to property. 82. By judgment no. 4252/08 (see paragraph 49 above), the Genoa Court held that the storming by the police officers of the Pascoli School had been the result of a mistake in identifying the building to be searched. It also found that no clear evidence had been provided to conclude that the accused had actually caused the damage complained of in the Pascoli School. 83. On the other hand, by judgment no. 1530/10 (see paragraph 59 above), the Genoa Court of Appeal found that there had been no mistake or misunderstanding behind the police storming of the Pascoli School. According to the Court of Appeal, the security forces had tried to destroy all film evidence of the storming of the neighbouring Diaz-Pertini School and had deliberately damaged the lawyers’ computers. It nevertheless decided to discontinue proceedings against the police officer charged because the impugned offences had become statute-barred. 84. By judgment no. 38085/12 (see paragraph 76 above) the Court of Cassation upheld that decision. It emphasised that the Court of Appeal had fully justified its conclusions by noting that the police had carried out an arbitrary search of the Pascoli School geared to seeking out and destroying audio-visual material and all other documentation concerning the events in the Diaz-Pertini School. 85. On 2 August 2001 the Presidents of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate decided to order an inquiry (indagine conoscitiva) into the events during the Genoa G8 Summit by the Constitutional Affairs Committees of both chambers of Parliament. For that purpose it set up a commission comprising eighteen Deputes and eighteen Senators. 86. On 20 September 2001 the commission submitted a report setting out the conclusions of the majority of its members, entitled “Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the events during the Genoa G8 Summit”. According to the Report the search of the Diaz-Pertini School “could probably be seen as the most significant example of the organisational shortcomings and operational dysfunctions”.

{'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 Paris. 6. She has been living with her daughter and brother in a flat in the Paris area since 2003. By a decision of 12 February 2010, served on 12 March 2010, the Paris mediation commission, finding that the applicant and her relatives were housed in indecent and insalubrious conditions, earmarked their case as a priority for urgent rehousing. 7. As she had not received any offer of accommodation taking account of her needs and capacities six months after the date of that decision, the applicant lodged an application with the Paris Administrative Court seeking an order for the State to provide her with housing, on pain of a fine. 8. On 28 December 2010 the Administrative Court upheld her application and instructed the prefect of the Île-de-France region to rehouse the applicant, her daughter and her brother, on pain of a fine of 700 euros (EUR), payable to the urban development fund for the Île-de-France region, for each month’s delay from 1 February 2011 onwards. The Administrative Court found as follows: “It emerges from the investigation that a safety architect employed by the Paris Police Commissioner’s Office noted on 9 July 2009 that the kitchen ceiling in the flat occupied by [the applicant], her daughter and her brother was in a dangerous state as it was unstable and weak. Her request should therefore be granted as a matter of particular urgency.” 9. On 31 January 2012, as the applicant had still not been rehoused, the Administrative Court assessed the interim amount of the fine for the period from 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012 and ordered the State to pay EUR 8,400 into the urban development fund for the Île-de-France region. 10. As matters stand, the applicant and her family have still not been rehoused.

{'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 1969 in Gori, Georgia. 7. According to the applicant, he first arrived in Penza, the Russian Federation, in 1992. Since his arrival took place shortly after the disintegration of the USSR, there were no entry requirements to comply with. 8. According to the Government, the applicant lived in Penza between 1993 and 1995. 9. In 1994 the applicant married L., a Russian national, and in September 1995 they had a son, G. According to the applicant, at some stage they sold their flat. Later they bought another flat. A loan for that flat was taken by the applicant’s wife, L., and is to be repaid by 2027. 10. In 1996 the applicant together with his family moved to Gori, Georgia, where until 1999 he worked at the Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. 11. According to the applicant, between 1996 and 1999 he regularly went to Russia to visit his parents-in-law. In May 1999 L. and G. moved back to Penza as L. had to return to her work after the maternity leave. The applicant also moved back to Penza in August 1999. He then regularly went to Georgia to visit his mother. As before 2000 there was no visa system between Russia and Georgia, he did not have to obtain any documents in this regard. After the visa system had been put in place, the applicant’s wife had to issue him an invitation so that he could legally reside in Russia. After one of his stays in Georgia he moved back to Russia on the basis of this invitation and thereafter lived together with his family in Penza. 12. According to the Government, having left for Georgia in 1996, the applicant returned to Russia on 18 May 2001 on the basis of a visa valid until 18 August 2001. Between 1999 and 2001 he still worked at the Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs. After his return to Russia in 2001 his visa was renewed on a number of occasions. 13. On 25 December 2001 the applicant applied for a residence permit. 14. On 17 June 2002 the Penza Region Directorate of Internal Affairs granted the application. 15. On 31 July 2002 the applicant was issued with a residence permit valid until 10 August 2004, the date of expiry of his Georgian passport. 16. On 27 April 2006 the applicant was found in breach of Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences on account of his failure to apply for the renewal of his residence permit, which had expired one year and eight months earlier. 17. On 24 May 2006 the applicant applied for the renewal of his residence permit. 18. On 8 August 2006 his residence permit was renewed until 10 August 2009. 19. On 27 October 2006 the applicant’s residential registration in Penza was cancelled upon his request and he obtained residential registration at a different address in the Penza Region until 10 August 2009, the date of expiry of his residence permit. 20. On 14 February 2009 the Federal Migration Service notified the applicant at the address of his registration in the Penza Region that he had to apply for the renewal of his residence permit six months prior to the expiry of the valid residence permit. As it transpired later, the applicant had moved to a different address in Penza and did not receive the notification. 21. According to the applicant, the authorities refused to accept his application for renewal of the residence permit submitted in due time because his birth certificate was not enclosed. 22. The applicant reapplied for residence permit on 27 July 2009, that is two weeks before the expiry of his valid residence permit. 23. On 29 July 2009 the applicant was found to have violated Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences on account of his failure to submit annual notifications of his continuous stay in Russia in breach of section 8 § 6 of the Foreigners Act. 24. On 5 August 2009 the Penza Region Directorate of the Federal Migration Service refused to renew the applicant’s residence permit. The decision stated that the applicant had failed to apply for the renewal in due time, despite the reminder sent to him on 14 February 2009, and had not specified any reasons for his failure. Furthermore, he had been twice found guilty of an administrative offence, on 27 April 2006 and 29 July 2009. 25. On 6 August 2009 the Penza Region Directorate of the Federal Migration Service sent the decision to the applicant with an accompanying letter which stated that upon expiry of his residence permit his residential registration would be cancelled and he would no longer have the right to live in Russia. Therefore, he had to leave Russia within fifteen days. However, the applicant could re-enter Russia and, after having obtained registration in the immigration register, reapply for a temporary residence permit. The applicant appealed to a court. 26. Also on 6 August 2009 the applicant was found in breach of Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences on account of his failure to inform the authorities of the change of his address as required by the legislation on immigration. 27. On 27 October 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza upheld the decision of the Penza Region Directorate of the Federal Migration Service of 5 August 2009. The court dismissed, inter alia, the applicant’s argument that he had first applied for the renewal of his residence permit in February 2009, but his application had not been accepted as he had had to renew his Georgian passport prior to applying. The court noted, firstly, the lack of evidence that the applicant had applied for the renewal of his residence permit in February 2009, and, secondly, that in his application of 27 July 2009 he had only stated that he had not been familiar with the procedure as the only explanation of his failure to apply in due time. 28. On 22 December 2009 the Penza Regional Court upheld the first‑instance court’s decision on appeal. 29. Between 10 August 2009 and March 2011 the applicant lived in Russia without a residence permit. 30. On 3 March 2011 the Penza Region Migration Service found the applicant to have violated Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences on account of his continued failure to leave Russia after the expiry of his residence permit on 10 August 2009 and imposed on him a fine in the amount of 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately 67 euros). 31. The applicant did not appeal against this decision, and it became final on 15 March 2011. 32. On 11 March 2011 the applicant was granted transit visa valid until 21 March 2011 so that he could leave Russia legally. 33. According to the applicant, he went to Georgia to have his birth certificate reissued. 34. In the meantime the applicant’s wife applied to the Penza Region Directorate of the Federal Migration Service to issue an invitation for the applicant to stay in Russia. 35. By a decision of 1 April 2011 her application was refused on the ground of the applicant having been three times found guilty of an administrative offence on account of breach of immigration rules and numerous other times on account of other administrative offence involving breach of traffic rules. For these reasons the issue of an invitation for the applicant to enter Russia was refused until 14 September 2013. 36. It appears that the applicant’s wife resubmitted her application which was again refused on 23 May 2011 on the same grounds. The letter of the same date accompanying the decision reiterated that the issue of an invitation for the applicant to enter Russia had been refused until 14 September 2013. 37. On 6 October 2011 the applicant entered Russia through the border with Belarus. Belarus had no visa requirements for Georgian nationals. According to the applicant, passport control officers on the Belarussian‑Russian border explained to him that, having entered Russia from Belarus, he could stay in Russia without a visa for two or three weeks. 38. On 24 October 2011, in the course of an identity check conducted by the police, the applicant failed to present any documents that would authorise his stay in Russia. On the same date the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Penza found him guilty of an administrative offence under Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences on account of a breach of immigration regulations, fined him with RUB 3,000 and ordered his administrative removal from Russia. The court also ordered the applicant’s placement in custody until his removal and noted that the decision could be appealed against within ten days after its announcement. In the decision the court noted the particular circumstances in which the offence had been committed and further stated as follows: “In order to determine the type ... of administrative penalty, the judge takes into account the concrete circumstances of the offence ... committed, [the applicant’s] financial and family situation, his personality, [the fact that] in 2011 he was found guilty of an administrative offence on account of a breach of regulations on foreign nationals’ stay in the Russian Federation, and, furthermore, that from 10 August 2009 to 11 March 2011 he was living in the Penza Region without [registration] in the migrants’ register and without a residential registration either, and avoided leaving the Russian Federation. The court is unaware of any circumstances that would prevent [the applicant’s] removal from Russia, given that he had been ... previously found guilty of an administrative offence in 2011 and the issue of an invitation for him to enter Russia is refused until 14 September 2013.” 39. As the applicant did not appeal within the set time-limits, the decision became enforceable. 40. The applicant was deported on 8 November 2011. 41. The applicant subsequently appealed against the decision of 24 October 2011. In his statement of appeal he submitted, in particular, that he had been married to L. since 1994 and that they had a son born in 1995. The decision on his administrative removal disrupted his family life. In particular, his son, who was sixteen at the time, needed his father at his side. The applicant’s removal from his family also placed a heavy burden on his wife, who not only had to raise their son on her own, but also to pay back the bank loan for the flat they had bought together. The applicant argued that the decision was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. He also noted that he had failed to comply with the time-limits to apply for the renewal of his residence permit which had expired on 10 August 2009 as his application had been refused for his failure to enclose his birth certificate, which he had not had with him in Russia (see paragraphs 18 and 21 above). 42. On 18 April 2012 the Penza Regional Court upheld the decision of 24 October 2011, having found that the Oktyabrskiy District Court had duly taken into account the information about the applicant, his financial and family situation, the previous administrative offence, the fact that between 10 August 2009 and 11 March 2011 he had lived in Russia without being duly registered, and that the issue of an invitation for him to enter Russia was refused until 14 September 2013. The court also took note of the fact that, according to the applicant’s explanations provided on 24 October 2011, he had come to Russia for certain business matters and was going to leave once they were solved. 43. The applicant submitted a request for supervisory review. 44. On 16 November 2012 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decisions of 24 October 2011 and 18 April 2012 under supervisory review. It noted, in particular, that the penalty imposed on the applicant was in accordance with the law and proportionate for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention, since the courts had taken into consideration the nature of the offence, his financial and family situation and other 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 applicant was born in 1953. 6. By judgment of 16 January 2006 the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal, composed of three judges and adjudicating as a court of first instance, convicted the applicant of fraud and forgery to the detriment of a bank and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant, who was being detained in Korydallos Prison at the time, appeared in person, assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing, N.G. 7. At the hearing held on 11 February 2009 before the Criminal Court of Appeal, composed of five judges, the applicant, who had meanwhile been transferred to Grevena Prison, appeared in person, assisted by two lawyers of his choosing, N.T. and E.P. The hearing was adjourned and scheduled to resume the next day. On 12 May 2009 the proceedings were once again adjourned, owing to a lawyers’ strike, until 20 May 2009. Before the end of the 12 May 2009 hearing the court informed the applicant that he would not be summoned to appear at the hearing on 20 May 2009. 8. Before the hearing on 20 May 2009 the applicant informed the court in writing that he would not be present but would be represented by his lawyers. However, neither of the lawyers whom the applicant had appointed on 11 February 2009 attended the hearing in question. The court then concluded that at the 12 February 2009 hearing the applicant had voiced a wish for a ruling on his appeal; it appointed G.M. official counsel for the applicant and adjourned the 27 May 2009 hearing so that the latter could familiarise himself with the case file. At the hearing G.M. submitted to the court that the offences with which the applicant had been charged were petty rather than serious offences, which plea had also been raised and dismissed at first instance. He also invited the court to take account of mitigating circumstances in respect of the applicant. 9. On 27 May 2009 the Criminal Court of Appeal reduced the applicant’s sentence to seven years’ imprisonment for the same offences. It dismissed the allegations that the offences came under tort law and ruled that they should be classified as criminal offences because the conditions set out in Act No. 1608/1950 on “increasing sentences imposed on persons found guilty of embezzling public funds” were fulfilled in the instant case. However, it acknowledged the existence of mitigating circumstances. 10. On 1 June 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law complaining of the erroneous application of the relevant legislation, in particular Act no. 1608/50. Relying on the case-law of the Court of Cassation, he submitted that the offences with which he had been charged fell under tort law and not under criminal law, and had become statute-barred by the date on which he had stood trial. He also complained of a violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. The applicant had prepared his appeal on points of law himself (albeit, evidently, with the assistance of a lawyer), lodging it with the Court of Cassation through the intermediary of the Grevena Prison authorities. On 5 November 2009, in Grevena prison, the applicant received a summons to appear at the 5 February 2010 hearing before the Court of Cassation. 11. On 30 December 2009 the applicant asked the President of the Court of Cassation to appoint an official lawyer to represent him before that court. 12. On 2 January 2010 the President of the Court of Cassation, noting the applicant’s situation of financial hardship, appointed F.K. to represent him at the 5 February 2010 hearing and/or at any other hearing held in the context of his case. 13. By judgment of 25 February 2010 (finalised on 29 March 2010 and authenticated on 28 April 2010, as of which date copies of the judgment could be issued on request), the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law as having been abandoned, on the grounds that the applicant, who had, according to the court, been summoned to appear at the hearing pursuant to standard procedure and within the requisite time-limit, had failed to appear. 14. The applicant submitted that he had contacted F.K. from prison after appointment of the latter, who had assured him that he would attend the hearing. However, F.K. had informed him of the reasons for his absence neither before nor after the hearing. The applicant explained that it was only later, during a telephone conversation (without providing details regarding the date, method or reasons for that conversation), that the lawyer had informed him that he had telephoned the registry of the Court of Cassation to request the adjournment of the hearing. 15. On page 4 of his application to the Court the applicant stated that he had taken cognisance of the judgment of the Court of Cassation on 18 October 2010, as clearly mentioned at the bottom of page 3 of 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'}

9. The applicant was born in 1973 and was detained in London at the time he lodged his application. 10. On 9 October 2009 the Public Prosecutor ordered an investigation against the applicant on charges of rape and indecent assault on a girl under the age of sixteen, with the aggravating circumstance that the perpetrator held a position of authority over her. 11. On 4 December 2009 the applicant was arrested in the United Kingdom under a European Arrest Warrant. The Government indicated that the applicant was presented with the European arrest warrant, which contained a statement in English of the facts and of the nature of the offences with which he was charged. The applicant submitted that he had been placed in “detention pending extradition” in a British prison, and that it did not transpire from the criminal file that the European arrest warrant had been served on him at that precise time. 12. On 17 December 2009 the applicant was surrendered to the Luxembourg authorities. At 2.45 p.m. he was officially served with the European arrest warrant on his arrival at Luxembourg airport, and at 3.20 p.m. he was questioned at the police station in the presence of an interpreter. It transpires from the police report of 17 December 2009 that “[the applicant] initially refused to make any statement. With repeated reference to British legislation, he claimed his right to legal assistance. After having received the requisite explanations regarding the procedure to be followed in cases such as his, he agreed to take part in the questioning”. The applicant was informed of the victim’s statements and the suspicions against him, and was questioned on the facts. He stated his version of events and contested all the charges against him, denying any guilt. At the end of the interrogation he requested legal assistance for the following day’s interrogation before the investigating judge. At 7.15 p.m. he was transferred to Luxembourg Prison. 13. On the morning of 18 December 2009 he was questioned by the investigating judge in the presence of an interpreter. In that connection, the minutes of the interrogation read as follows: at 9.02 a.m. the investigating judge checked the identity of the applicant – who now held accused (Beschuldigter) status – and informed him that a criminal investigation (Untersuchungsverfahren) had been initiated against him concerning the offences with which he had been charged. The applicant was then informed of his right to choose a defence lawyer from among the members of the Bar Association or to obtain the assistance of an officially appointed lawyer. The applicant availed himself of that right, and was assigned Mr W. as his officially appointed lawyer. The applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer and an interpreter; he made statements on the facts and confirmed his statements to the police. The interrogation ended at 10.53 a.m. 14. It transpires from the case file that the applicant, who had been remanded in custody, was released on 10 March 2010 by the Luxembourg District Court subject to his remaining in Luxembourg, reporting regularly to the police and refraining from contacting his victim. 15. By a judgment of 31 March 2011 the criminal division of the District Court sentenced the applicant to a seven-year prison term accompanied by a three-year partial probation period. The judges reiterated the statements from the victim, the witnesses and the applicant during the judicial and police investigations and during the court hearing. They mentioned the fact that the applicant had constantly changed his “version of events”, and pointed out that according to a credibility analysis none of the evidence gathered had cast any legitimate doubts on the truthfulness of the victim’s statements. 16. On 7 February 2012 the criminal division of the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. 17. The judges observed that the applicant had contested the charges against him throughout the proceedings and that he was maintaining his objections before the Court of Appeal. They held that the district court had provided a detailed and exhaustive list of the statements by the victim, the applicant and the various witnesses and experts questioned. 18. They pointed out that the applicant’s lawyer had complained about the fact that after the applicant’s extradition from the United Kingdom had had been heard by the police on his arrival in Luxembourg without the benefit of legal assistance, which he had requested but been denied; the judges therefore concluded as follows: “As regards the failure to provide for the assistance of a lawyer during the question by police, it transpires from police report SPJ/JEUN/2009/6926-5/COES of 17 December 2009 that the accused had initially requested the assistance of a lawyer during the questioning which was to take place in the police station, but that after the applicable procedure had been explained to him he had agreed to give statements without the assistance of counsel.” 19. In their analysis of the charges against the applicant, the judges noted, among other things, that the latter had not always been consistent in his statements. With particular regard to one of the episodes in issue, they referred to the difference between the statements which he had made during the police questioning and his depositions during the first-instance and appeal hearings. 20. On 22 November 2012 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. In particular, it declared ill-founded a submission under Article 6 § 3 of the Convention, on the following grounds: “Whereas it transpires from the discussion of the submission that the [applicant] complains that the Court of Appeal merely found a violation of the rights of the defence without drawing the requisite conclusions from that finding; Whereas, however, the Court of Appeal held that ... [see quotation in paragraph 18]; That, in reaching such a decision the Appeal did not find a violation of the rights of the defence as alleged by the appellant but, on the contrary, concluded that there had been no violation of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the accused had recorded his agreement to making statements in the absence of counsel; It follows that the impugned judgment did not violate Article 6 § 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as alleged by the applicant; ...” 21. The applicant left Luxembourg for the United Kingdom (at an unspecified date), and on 20 December 2012 the prosecution issued a European arrest warrant for the purposes of executing the 7 February 2012 judgment. 22. On 12 June 2013, in response to a request from the British authorities (the Extradition Unit of the Crown Prosecution Service) dated 29 May 2013, a representative of the Principal State Prosecutor provided those authorities with information on judicial procedures in Luxembourg. As regards the hearing of 17 December 2009, the representative stated in particular that it had transpired from the police report that the applicant, whose statements had been translated by the interpreter, had neither been assisted by a lawyer or been offered legal assistance. As regards the interrogation of 18 December 2009, the representative explained that a lawyer officially appointed by the investigating judge had assisted the applicant during the interrogation and for the duration of the ensuing domestic proceedings. She added that anyone asking to consult his or her officially appointed or freely chosen lawyer, before an interrogation, was allowed to do so; contrary to his assertions, the applicant’s access to his lawyer before the interrogation of 18 December 2009 had not been restricted. 23. On 19 August 2013 the British court authorised the applicant’s surrender to the Luxembourg authorities in order to serve his sentence in Luxembourg; the applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed on 20 December 2013. According to the case file, the applicant is currently incarcerated in Luxembourg 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'}

5. The applicants were born in 1956 and 1957 respectively and live in Zagreb. 6. On 16 October 1991 the Gospić police learned that seven civilians had been killed that day in the village of Bukovac. Their bodies were transported to the Pathology Department of the Gospić Medical Centre by the members of the Croatian Army who had found them. Two of the bodies were identified as the applicants’ parents, Mile and Ana Pocrnić, and the third as their grandmother, Marija Pocrnić. An investigating judge of the Gospić County Court was informed of the killings. The investigating judge decided that it was not possible to carry out an on-site inspection because of the danger of further attacks by unidentified persons from Široka Kula. 7. On the same day a pathologist performed an autopsy on the corpses and drew up a post-mortem report. He established that the applicants’ parents and their grandmother had been shot dead. 8. On 28 December 1991 the Gospić police lodged a criminal complaint with the Gospić County State Attorney’s Office against persons unknown on charges of murder in connection with the killing of seven inhabitants of the Bukovac village on 16 October 1991, including the applicants’ parents, Mile and Ana Pocrnić, and their grandmother Marija Pocrnić. 9. On 11 September 1992 the Gospić police interviewed I.P., who had been living in Podlapača, a village near Bukovac, during the critical period. On an unspecified date in December 1991 three members of the Serbian paramilitary forces, M.B., R.Š. and J.G., had fired at him, but he had escaped into the woods. While visiting one of his neighbours on 26 October 1991 he had met B. and Č., who had said that they had killed some people in Bukovac. When the police showed him photographs of some members of the Serbian paramilitary forces he recognised B.G. and Č.B. as B. and Č., the persons he had met at his neighbour’s house. 10. On 14 September 1992 the police interviewed P.J. and I.J., who were brothers. P.J. said that he had met B.G., Č.B. and another man in a prison in Knin. When he had asked B.G. why they had been imprisoned he had told him that they had killed some civilians in Korenica. However, I.J. and P.J. thought that this had not happened in Korenica but in one of the Croatian villages near Lički Osik. 11. On 15 September 1992 the Gospić police sent a report to the Karlovac Military Prosecutor stating that B.G. and Č.B may have been among the perpetrators of the killings in Bukovac. 12. Immediately before the Croatian Army military action “Storm” which started on 4 August 1995, the vast majority of the Serbian paramilitary forces fled Croatia, firstly to Bosnia and then to Serbia in some cases. 13. In 1996 the United Nations Security Council established the United Nations Transitional Administration in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (the “UNTAES”). On 15 January 1998 the UNTAES mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the Croatian authorities began. 14. On 19 March 1996 the second applicant handed the police a letter sent to her by her relative D.P. 15. In 2001 the police interviewed the second applicant. 16. On 23 August 2001 the Service for the Protection of the Constitutional Order (Služba za zaštitu ustavnog poretka) sent a report to the Ministry of Justice and the Gospić County State Attorney’s Office on the killing of the applicants’ parents and grandmother, allegedly by members of the Serbian paramilitary forces. The report stated that the only survivors who had any information about the killings were D.P. and J.P., who both lived in Canada. A letter of 19 March 1996, drafted by D.P., was also enclosed, as well as a letter drafted by D.P. and his father J.P. on an unspecified date and sent to the Service for the Protection of the Constitutional Order. D.P. alleged that on 16 October 1991 a group of members of the Serbian paramilitary forces from Široka Kula had come to their village, Bukovac, and killed several people. He named D.L., M.Su., M.O., D.V., M.Se., Bo.K., Da.M., N.M., Du.M., Br.K., Ma.U., S.G., Mi.U. and T.G. as those personally known to him. He openly named commanders of various formations of these forces as: P.R., M.O., S.Č. or Ɖ., Mi.Se. and M.K. The only survivors had been himself and his parents. They had been taken from Bukovac to a prison in Korenica. His mother had died in the meantime while he and his father J.P. had emigrated to Canada after the war. 17. On 1 October 2001 the Gospić County State Attorney’s Office lodged a request for an investigation with the Gospić County Court and asked that D.P. and J.P. be heard as witnesses. 18. On 15 January 2004 the police interviewed S.Ɖ. and D.S., former members of the Serbian paramilitary forces, in the Zagreb Prison Hospital. S.Ɖ. said that a formation of Serbian paramilitary forces under the command of Mi.S. and D.L. had carried out “actions”, inter alia, in the area of Bukovac. He named several members of that formation. D.S. described various actions in which members of Serbian paramilitary forces had killed civilians in Croatian villages in the broader area of Široka Kula and Lički Osik, including Bukovac, but had no information about the killing of the applicants’ relatives. 19. On 23 January 2004 the police interviewed B.Č., also a former member of the Serbian paramilitary forces, who described various actions in which members of Serbian paramilitary forces had killed civilians in Croatian villages in the broader area of Široka Kula and Lički Osik, including Bukovac, but had no information about the killing of the applicants’ relatives. 20. On 2 May 2006 an investigating judge of the Gospić County Court asked the Gospić County State Attorney’s Office whether they still insisted on interviews with D.P. and J.P. since their address was “uncertain”. On 29 June 2006 the investigating judge asked the Gospić Counter-Information Service for the address of D.P. and J.P. On 9 August 2006 the Centre provided the investigating judge with the address of D.P. and J.P. in Canada. 21. On 16 September 2008 the Department for War Crimes of the Ministry of the Interior sent a detailed report about the possible suspects to the Ličko-senjska Police Department. 22. On 16 July 2010 the Gospić County State Attorney’s Office sent a report to the State Attorney’s Office on the killing of seven civilians in Bukovac in 1991. The Gospić County Court had informed them that the Canadian Ministry of Justice had invited D.P. and J.P. on three occasions to give their statements, which they had refused to do with the explanation that they had already given their statements in writing. They had almost certainly been referring to a letter to their relatives in Croatia and the one sent to the Service for the Protection of the Constitutional Order. 23. On 14 September 2010 an investigating judge of the Gospić County Court heard evidence from M.Ć., who confirmed that members of the Serbian paramilitary forces had captured D.P. in 1991. As to the killing of the seven persons in Bukovac, he had heard about that from one I.K., who had died in the meantime. 24. On 24 October 2011 the police interviewed M.P., I.J. and P.J. M.P. had no relevant information about the killing of the civilians in Bukovac. I.J. and P.J. repeated their earlier statements (see paragraph 10 above). 25. On 25 October 2011 the police again interviewed I.P., who repeated his statement of 11 September 1992 (see paragraph 9 above). On the same day the police also interviewed N.P., a neighbour of I.P., who admitted that B.G. and Č.B. had visited him in 1991 but said that they had not mentioned the killing of civilians in Bukovac. 26. On 26 October 2011 the police noted that in March 2011 B.G. and Č.B. had been convicted of war crimes in connection with the killing of R.’s family in Lički Osik, Croatia, and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment by a court in Belgrade. 27. In 2011 the police interviewed the second applicant again. 28. On 20 January 2011 the police interviewed D.M., one of the Croatian soldiers who had found the bodies in Bukovac. He had no relevant information about the killing of the civilians in Bukovac. 29. On 21 January 2011 the police interviewed B.Č., a former member of the Serbian paramilitary forces. He repeated his earlier statement (see paragraph 19 above). 30. On 22 August 2011 the Belgrade Interpol Office informed the Zagreb Interpol Office that one of the suspects, D.V., had been placed in pre-trial detention in connection with a different set of criminal proceedings. He had in the meantime become a Serbian citizen. 31. On 2 February 2012 the Ličko-senjska Police Department sent a report to the Karlovac County State Attorney’s Office informing it that two of the persons mentioned in D.P.’s letter (see paragraph 14 above), namely D.L. and M.S., had died. A report drawn up by M.Š., a member of the Serbian paramilitary forces was enclosed. It stated that on 16 October 1991 “they had killed seven people”. A list of the members of the paramilitary forces from the Teslingrad area was also enclosed. 32. On 21 September 2012 the Rijeka County State Attorney’s Office sent a criminal complaint against B.G. and Č.B. to the Serbian Prosecutor for War Crimes and asked him for the address of another suspect, M.Š., indicating that he should be questioned about the report he had allegedly drawn up on the events of 16 October 1991 in Bukovac. 33. On 28 January 2013 the Rijeka County State Attorney’s Office forwarded a report on the interviews with B.G., Č.B. and M.Š., carried out by the Serbian authorities, to the Ličko-senjska Police Department. They denied any involvement in the killing of the applicants’ relatives. 34. Between 21 February and 5 March 2013 the Ličko-senjska Police Department interviewed P.J., I.J., D.P., M.P., I.P. and N.P., M.P. and D.P. had no relevant information about the killing of the applicants’ relatives. The others repeated their earlier statements. 35. On 27 February and 8 March 2013 the Ličko-senjska Police Department sent a report to the Rijeka County State Attorney’s Office listing the suspected perpetrators of the killings in Bukovac on 16 October 1991. Four of them had died, fourteen had moved to Serbia, three to the United States and in respect of two of them there was no relevant information. 36. On 15 March 2013 the Rijeka County State Attorney’s Office sent the report of 8 March 2013 to the Serbian Prosecutor for War Crimes and asked him to interview the suspects living in Serbia. 37. In April 2013 the police learned that one of the suspects, I.S., had died.

{'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 1978 and lives in Băcioi. 5. The applicant is a police officer and on 21 July 2004 the Centru District Court delivered a judgment obliging the Chișinău municipality to provide him and his family with social housing. This judgment was upheld by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 19 October 2004 and became final on 4 November 2004. Enforcement proceedings were instituted on 11 May 2005. 6. After the communication of the present case to the Government, on 2 August 2011, the applicant initiated court proceedings under Law no. 87 (see paragraph 12 below) seeking enforcement of the final judgment in his favour and compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 10,000 euros (EUR), for pecuniary damage in the amount of 129,700 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to EUR 7,886) (MDL 123,200 of which represented the rent he had paid from September 2004 to December 2011 for alternative accommodation and MDL 6,500 of which represented costs and expenses before the Court), and MDL 3,950 (EUR 240) as costs and expenses in domestic proceedings. In support of his claims in respect of pecuniary damage, the applicant submitted four lease contracts, each of them concluded for periods of less than three years. 7. In court, the Ministry of Finance disputed the validity of the lease contracts, arguing that they were fictitious because the landlady and the applicant were relatives, because the landlady had not applied for commercial registration (patenta de intreprinzator) to earn profits from lease, and because the contracts had not been registered with the tax authorities until 2011 and had never been registered in the land register. 8. On 30 November 2011 the Rîșcani District Court acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention resulting from the non‑enforcement of the final judgment in his favour for over seven years. The court dismissed the arguments of the Ministry of Finance, holding that the lease contracts had been concluded for periods of less than three years and were therefore not subject to mandatory registration in the land register. The court also took the view that the landlady’s failure to register promptly her lease profits and her commercial activity had resulted in penalties and taxes ‒ which had been paid ‒ but that this failure was anyway not imputable to the applicant and did not affect the validity of the contracts. The court awarded the applicant MDL 112,000 (equivalent to EUR 7,050) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and granted his claims in respect of pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses in full. The Ministry of Finance appealed. 9. On 29 February 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and delivered a new judgment, acknowledging a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 of the Convention resulting from the non-enforcement of a final judgment for a period of 78 months (from 11 May 2005 to 30 November 2011). The court awarded the applicant MDL 36,000 (equivalent to EUR 2,270) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and MDL 8,965 (EUR 565) for costs and expenses. The court dismissed the applicant’s claims in respect of pecuniary damage as unsubstantiated, arguing that the lease contracts had been ineffective vis à vis the State on the grounds cited by the Ministry of Finance (see paragraph 7 above) and cited Article 876 of the Civil Code. This judgment was final. 10. On 8 August 2012 the municipality issued the applicant with an occupancy voucher (bon de repartiție), entitling him to move into a new flat. 11. By a letter of 15 May 2014 the Government informed the Court that the final judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced on 8 August 2012. The applicant did not dispute this.

{'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 detained in Rawicz Prison. 6. On 13 November 2006 the applicant was arrested and charged with sexual abuse of twenty minor girls. 7. On 15 November 2006 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain him on remand. The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the aforementioned offences. It attached particular importance to the likelihood that a severe sentence of imprisonment would be imposed on him and to the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings. The applicant’s appeal, lodged against the detention order, was dismissed by the second-instance court. 8. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court on 12 February, 8 May and 21 August 2007, by the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 13 November 2007 and on 12 February 2008, by the Kalisz District Court on 9 May and 13 August 2008, as well as by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, 18 February, 20 May and on 14 October 2009. 9. The courts justified their decisions by the particularly high risk of the applicant’s absconding abroad or otherwise obstructing the course of the proceedings and by the severity of the anticipated penalty. They also had regard to the nature of the offences with which he had been charged and considered that, given the applicant’s personality, a release on bail would not sufficiently secure the proper course of the proceedings. 10. Meanwhile, on 5 May 2008 a bill of indictment against the applicant and another person was lodged with the Kalisz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The prosecutor requested the court to hear 127 witnesses. 11. The trial started on 17 November 2008. Subsequently, the trial court held seven hearings in 2008, forty-six hearings in 2009 and four hearings in 2010. 12. On 19 January 2010 the Kalisz District Court convicted the applicant of sexual abuse of twenty minor girls. The court determined that the applicant had committed those offences in various ways. He had sexual intercourse with some of the victims and he sexually abused the others in different ways. He was also found guilty of aiding sexual abuse and of serving alcohol to minors. The first-instance court sentenced the applicant to a cumulative penalty of eight years and six months’ imprisonment. 13. On the same day, the Kalisz District Court extended the applicant’s detention. His detention was later prolonged by the same court’s decision of 27 April 2010. The applicant’s appeals against these two decisions were dismissed on 10 February 2010 and 26 May 2010, respectively, by the Kalisz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). On 29 July and 27 October 2010 the same court granted further extensions of the applicant’s detention. The courts relied on the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant, given that he had been sentenced at first‑instance to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. They considered that there was therefore a risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings by absconding. In establishing the existence of this risk they referred to the applicant’s knowledge of foreign languages and to the fact that he had previously travelled abroad. They also stressed the particularly drastic nature of the offences in question. 14. The applicant and the prosecutor lodged appeals against the first‑instance judgment. 15. On 2 December 2010 the Kalisz Regional Court altered the judgment in part and increased the applicant’s cumulative sentence to ten years’ imprisonment. 16. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal (kasacja) with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). He later withdrew his cassation 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'}

7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 8. The applicant was born in 1950 and is a Turkish national, originating from the town of Nurhak. He arrived in Switzerland in June 1988. 9. He claimed to have been detained and tortured by the Turkish authorities in 1987/88, prior to fleeing to Switzerland, because he was a member of a Turkish Communist Party (hereinafter the TCP). Together with his two older sons, who had also been politically active in the TCP, the applicant was considered a refugee and granted asylum in 1994 by the Federal Office for Migration (hereinafter the Federal Office). 10. In 1995 the applicant received a residence permit issued by the Office for Migration of the Canton of Zurich. Following this, his wife and his other three children came to live in Switzerland. 11. In 1990 the applicant was severely hurt at work and was subsequently granted an invalidity pension. 12. His children and grandchildren are all Swiss nationals and the applicant remains in close contact with them. The applicant kept in contact with his family members in Turkey. At least two sisters are still living in Turkey. In one of the applicant’s submissions it appears that the applicant’s last remaining brother in Turkey has died while in a later submission it appears that one brother is still living there. The applicant has several nephews and nieces residing in Turkey and in the United Kingdom. The exact number is unknown. Some of them have even visited him in Switzerland. 13. In 2001 the applicant killed his wife during a dispute. He shot her three times in the head and once in the stomach. In 2003 the applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. During the proceedings a recurrent depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms was diagnosed, classified as schizophrenic disease syndrome. Due to his mental illness, a plea of diminished responsibility for the crime in question was accepted. Imprisonment was postponed, to allow him to benefit from treatment in a closed psychiatric facility. 14. By decision of 3 March 2009 the Federal Office revoked the asylum status granted to the applicant because he had been sentenced for a serious crime. Nevertheless, the Federal Office did not withdraw the applicant’s status as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention. 15. In April 2010 the applicant was paroled on the condition that he remain in a facility with psychiatric care for the following three years. He was released from the closed ward and admitted to an open residence facility where continuous psychiatric care and supervision were provided. He suffered several relapses which led to temporary stays in a closed psychiatric hospital. 16. Despite the psychiatric treatment the applicant had received, expert reports indicated that he was, and would remain, unable to live on his own. He would have to continue to take psychotropic drugs on a regular basis and undergo therapy, failing which he would suffer relapses into hallucinations and psychotic delusions during which he might harm himself or other persons. Expulsion would lead to a deterioration of his condition; even more so if he were expelled to Turkey, where he felt persecuted. He was unable to distinguish his paranoid ideas from reality. The applicant was also appointed a legal guardian. 17. On 28 June 2010 the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich revoked the applicant’s residence permit on the basis of the Federal Office’s decision and ordered the applicant to leave Switzerland within three months. 18. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to all instances against the decision to expel him. In an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court he claimed that he had not been adequately heard during the court proceedings. He claimed that adequate consideration had not been given to the fact that he continued to benefit from the principle of non-refoulement. If he were removed to Turkey, his mental health would further deteriorate, to such an extent that his life would be in danger. In addition, he would be at risk of being harmed by his wife’s relatives and being subjected to torture or inhuman treatment by the public authorities in Turkey. In the appeal to the Federal Supreme Court he also mentioned Article 8 of the Convention in a heading, but claimed neither directly nor in substance a violation of his right to respect for his private and family life. 19. On 2 August 2012 the Federal Supreme Court refused the applicant’s appeal. It ruled that the applicant could be sent back to Turkey despite his recognition as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention. It considered that he had been sentenced for a serious crime and concluded that it could not be established that, in the event of an expulsion, the applicant’s mental health would deteriorate to such an extent as to become life-threatening. There were psychiatric facilities in Turkey where the applicant could receive treatment. 20. Regarding the risk of a blood feud with the relatives of the applicant’s wife in Turkey, the Federal Supreme Court noted that the applicant had failed to substantiate his claim that the Turkish authorities would not be able to protect him from such acts. Moreover, he could relocate within Turkey. Also, after the applicant’s wife’s death, her relatives had been to Switzerland without there being any reported behaviour that could lead to the assumption that a serious danger for the applicant existed. They had simply avoided him. 21. With respect to the risk of being tortured for having been a member of the TCP, the Federal Supreme Court noted that the applicant’s political activities dated back more than 20 years, and the human rights situation in Turkey had changed significantly since then. The applicant’s wife and several of the applicant’s children had already renounced their refugee status and travelled back to Turkey for visits. They had not reported any difficulties when entering and staying in Turkey, despite the political activities of family members in the past. 22. On 21 August 2012 the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich informed the applicant that he had to leave Switzerland by 30 November 2012. On 10 December 2012 this time-limit was extended until 31 January 2013. 23. By decision of 2 July 2013 the District Court of Zurich prolonged the applicant’s probation regarding his criminal conviction until 1 July 2016 and ordered that, owing to the applicant’s need for medical treatment, he continue to receive treatment in an institution providing psychiatric care until that date. 24. So far, no date for the removal of the applicant to Turkey has been set but the order of the Migration Office to leave the country remains in force.

{'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 German nationals born in 1979 and 1978 respectively. They are currently serving prison sentences in Germany, following their conviction by the Romanian authorities for drug trafficking, as described below. 6. At the time of the impugned events, S.R.B., one of the applicants’ acquaintances, was in police custody accused of drug-related offences. In the context of a covert operation, S.R.B. agreed to contact the applicants by phone in order to arrange a drug transaction. It appears that following several phone conversations between S.R.B. and the first applicant, the latter agreed to deliver 5,000 Ecstasy pills to Romania. 7. On 9 November 2007 the prosecutor in charge of investigating S.R.B.’s case issued an order (ordonanta) in which he authorised the intervention of three undercover agents, namely D.D., N.A. and L.C., who were mandated to purchase 6,000 Ecstasy pills with the assistance of S.R.B. The justification given for such an intervention was that, based on S.R.B.’s statements, there existed a strong indication that individuals as yet unknown to the police intended to commit the offence of drug trafficking. The undercover agents were necessary in the operation because the individuals in question “belonged to a drug-dealing network which acted very cautiously, taking a lot of precautions in their activities and relying exclusively on highly trustworthy persons”. On the same date, the prosecutor authorised the undercover agents N.A. and L.C. to be provided with 35,000 euros (EUR), to be taken from the special funds of the police, with the purpose of using it to purchase the drugs. 8. On the night of 9 to 10 November 2007 the applicants entered Romania and met S.R.B. in a petrol station in Timişoara. Subsequently, they requested to be directed to a mechanical workshop, where they asked to be left alone. S.R.B. was asked to wait for their phone call before returning to the garage with the money for the drugs. 9. The applicants’ activity of removing the drugs from hidden compartments under the front passenger seat of the vehicle was video recorded by the investigators, based on an authorisation issued by the court on 25 October 2007. After more than an hour, the applicants called S.R.B. to return to the garage together with the buyers, who were the undercover agents. One of them, N.A., handed over EUR 35,000, and the second applicant verified the authenticity of some of the bank notes with a special pencil. At the same time, the applicants presented the drugs, packed in zip-locked plastic bags, to the undercover agents. The investigators then intervened in order to ensure that the applicants were caught in flagrante delicto. 10. On the same day the applicants were placed in custody in the detention facility of the Timiş police station, in connection with drug-trafficking charges. 11. In his statement given before the prosecutor on 10 November 2007, the first applicant declared that he and the second applicant had come to Romania for personal reasons, namely to visit relatives. He claimed that they had intended to spend the night at the home of S.R.B., a friend of theirs, and that they had no knowledge of the content of the plastic bags found in the garage. The second applicant refused to give any statements, claiming that he was overwhelmed by the situation. On 5 December 2007 the first applicant specified before the prosecutor that when they had been in the garage, the two individuals who had entered with S.R.B. had taken some plastic bags out of another car that was parked in the garage, and had placed them on a table. A third person who had come in later had taken out some money and asked him and the second applicant to count it, without indicating why. 12. In his statement given before the prosecutor on 10 November 2007 in the presence of his lawyer, S.R.B. admitted that he had agreed to cooperate with the police in order to benefit from the provisions of Law no. 143/2000 granting certain benefits to those who contributed to or facilitated the identification of perpetrators of crime; he had therefore told the police that he had knowledge of a group of people who was involved in the international trafficking of Ecstasy pills. With the permission of the prosecutor, he then contacted the first applicant on the phone; the latter agreed to bring to Romania 5,000 Ecstasy pills for the price of 40,000 EUR. Several other phone calls were made in order to arrange the details of the transaction, which took place on the night of 9 to 10 November. S.R.B. confirmed that the phone calls and his being taken out of custody for the operation had been approved by the prosecutor. 13. On 6 March 2008 the applicants and S.R.B., were charged with drug-related offences. 14. During the proceedings before the first-instance court, namely until the hearing of 4 February 2009 (see paragraph 16 below), the applicants pleaded not guilty, claiming that they had had no knowledge of the plastic bags, which they believed had been placed in the garage by the three persons who had accompanied S.R.B., in order to set them up. Up until the same hearing, S.R.B., legally assisted by Mr Fanu Moca Adrian and his substitute lawyer, Mr S.D., maintained the statements he had given before the investigating authorities. 15. At the hearing of 16 October 2008 the court watched the video recordings made on the night of 9 to 10 November 2007, in the presence of the applicants, S.R.B. and their respective lawyers. The recordings were not contested and their authenticity was not questioned. 16. At the hearing of 4 February 2009, the applicants, then represented by lawyer S.D., changed their plea and claimed that they had been pushed to commit the offence by the investigators, who had acted as agents provocateurs. They invoked in their defence the Court’s case-law in relation to police entrapment, namely Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal (9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV) and Ramanauskas v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 74420/01, ECHR 2008). The applicants contended that they had first declined S.R.B.’s proposal, but had finally agreed to deliver the drugs to Romania in order to help S.R.B., who had claimed that he had been facing financial difficulties. The first applicant stated that he had been called by S.R.B. on a daily basis for one month. Each time he had refused S.R.B.’s proposal, and each time the latter had increased his offer, namely from 3 euros per pill initially to the final price of 8 euros per pill. At the same hearing, S.R.B. also changed his statement and alleged that he had been coerced by the police to act as he had. He stated that during the telephone negotiations, the investigating authorities had asked him to increase both the quantity of pills requested and their price so that the first applicant would accept the transaction. He claimed that he had known the applicants as drug consumers, but not as drug dealers. He mentioned that some of the conversations he had had with the first applicant on a mobile phone had been recorded. 17. On 19 March 2009 the Timiş District Court sentenced the applicants to fifteen years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking. In its ruling, the court relied on the video recordings made on the day on which the applicants had been caught red-handed by Timiş police officers, as well as on the statements given by witnesses, including S.R.B. and the undercover agents. The court ruled that the procedure used by the applicants to conceal the drugs showed that they were experienced in international trafficking of narcotic drugs and had sought to make a significant profit, while the operation to catch them red-handed could not be considered as entrapment. The court found that the method used by the applicants to hide the drugs in the cavities of the front passenger seat of the vehicle and the large quantity of drugs that they managed to transport across several borders showed that they were not unfamiliar with drug trafficking. The court held that S.R.B.’s change of testimony could not be taken into account, as there was no other evidence to corroborate it and it contradicted his previous testimonies. 18. The applicants appealed against that judgment. 19. On 18 June 2009 the Timişoara Court of Appeal heard the applicants and S.R.B. They all maintained their previous statements according to which S.R.B., coerced by the police, had incited the applicants to commit the crime. 20. At the hearing, the applicants also submitted a request that the prosecution make available the recordings of the telephone conversations between S.R.B. and the first applicant, or at least a list of those conversations and of the telephones used. The applicants argued that the recordings proved on the one hand that S.R.B. had been coerced to cooperate with the police and on the other hand that there had been a high degree of incitement in the negotiations in order to persuade them to accept the deal. The court allowed the request. On 14 July 2009 the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice submitted that such recordings did not exist because the court had not been requested to authorise the recording of the phone conversations. Furthermore, according to the indictment, it was S.R.B. who had asked to be allowed to contact the applicants, under the supervision of the prosecutor, in order to take advantage of the lenient conditions prescribed in section 16 of Law no. 143/2000. 21. By its judgment of 21 October 2009, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s judgment. The court stated that the authorities had been legally entitled to bring to the attention of S.R.B. the benefits of cooperating with the police by virtue of section 16 of Law 143/2000, a reduction of his sentence. The applicants’ allegation that they had been entrapped was refuted by the court, which noted that the international case-law they had invoked was not applicable. In the case of Teixeira, the undercover agent and the collaborator had dealt with the applicant in person, while in Ramanauskas the applicant had been contacted by the agent claiming to be an acquaintance of the collaborator, whereas in the present case the applicants had never been contacted by the undercover agents, since S.R.B. had taken the initiative to ask to be allowed to make contact with the applicants in order to benefit from section 16 of Law no. 143/2000. Furthermore, in the present case the applicants had freely chosen to travel to Romania with the drugs. Nothing had prevented them from refusing S.R.B.’s proposal. 22. The applicants further appealed against that judgment. They maintained before the High Court of Cassation and Justice that they had been entrapped, having been incited to sell drugs by S.R.B. He in turn had been forced to incite them to do so by the investigators, who had promised him a reduction in his sentence. The applicants also denounced the use of the undercover officer N.A., who had sought, through S.R.B., to purchase the drugs. 23. By a judgment of 28 January 2010, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, taking into account as a mitigating factor the applicants’ lack of a previous criminal record, partly allowed the appeal and reduced their sentences to seven years’ imprisonment. The High Court upheld the lower courts’ reasoning in dismissing the entrapment pleas. It held that S.R.B., interested in the reduction of his sentence, had collaborated with the police and contacted the applicants in order to buy drugs; however, the applicants had had the opportunity to refuse the transaction proposed by him. Therefore, the court considered that the applicants’ pleas of entrapment were unfounded. 24. As from 10 November 2007, the applicants were remanded in custody in the Timiş police station detention facility. According to the Government, the applicants were placed in separate cells measuring 12 square metres, which they shared with five other inmates. On 11 March 2008 the applicants were transferred to Timişoara Prison. The Government submitted that the cells in which the applicants had been placed measured 21 square metres, and were shared by a total of nine inmates. On 7 December 2009 the applicants were transferred to Rahova Prison, where they were placed in cells measuring 19.58 square metres with ten beds. On 29 July 2010 the applicants were transferred to Giurgiu Prison, where they remained until 28 July 2011 (the first applicant) and 17 August 2011 (the second applicant), when they were transferred to the Giurgiu Police Inspectorate in order to be transferred to serve the remainder of their sentence in Germany. The Government pointed out that the applicants had had access to clean sanitary facilities as well as to hot and cold water, in accordance with a specific schedule.

{'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 1945 and lives in L’Aquila. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6. The applicant was the owner of a plot of land designated as industrial land in L’Aquila. The land in issue – of a surface area of 10,059 square metres – was recorded in the land register as Folio no. 4, Parcel no. 222. 7. In 1989, the regional administrative authorities granted the Consortium for the industrial development of L’Aquila (“Consorzio per il nucleo di sviluppo industriale di L’Aquila”, hereinafter “the Consortium”) permission to occupy a portion of the applicant’s land in order to begin the construction of an industrial compound. 8. On an unspecified date, the applicant brought an action for damages in the L’Aquila District Court against the regional administrative authorities seeking compensation for the remaining portion of land which had become unusable following the occupation. 9. On 9 April 1991 the regional administrative authorities issued an expropriation order in respect of the land. 10. Pursuant to the order, the consortium offered the applicant a global sum of 106.400.000 Italian lire (ITL) (equivalent to EUR 55,000) as compensation for the expropriation and compensation for the period during which the land had been occupied before the expropriation order had been issued. 11. The offer was refused by the applicant on the ground that he considered it inadequate. 12. On 9 May 1991, contesting the amount that he had been awarded, the applicant brought proceedings against the Consortium in the L’Aquila Court of Appeal. He argued that the amount determined by the regional authorities was extremely low in relation to the market value of the land. 13. On 14 August 1992 Law no. 359 of 8 August 1992 came into force (“Urgent measures aimed at stabilising public finances”). Article 5 bis of the Law laid down new criteria for calculating compensation for the expropriation of building land. The Law was expressly applicable to pending proceedings. 14. On 3 November 1993, the applicant accepted the consortium’s offer and requested the termination of the proceedings (“cessazione della materia del contendere”). 15. By a provisional judgment delivered on 22 November 1994, the Court of Appeal acknowledged the entry into force of Law no. 359 of 8 August 1992 and held that the amount of the compensation for the expropriation had to be in accordance with the new criteria laid down in the legislation’s Article 5bis. The court therefore rejected the applicant’s request to terminate the proceedings, appointed an expert and instructed him to assess the compensation for the expropriation according to the new criteria. 16. On an unspecified date, the expert submitted his report. 17. By a judgment delivered on 23 July 2002 and filed with the court registry on 1 August 2002, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant was entitled to compensation in the sum of EUR 77,556.40, as calculated according to the criteria laid down in Law no. 359 of 1992. Moreover, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the period during which the land had been occupied before the expropriation order had been issued, in the sum of EUR 12 778,37. The amounts were subject to tax, deducted at the source at a rate of 20%. 18. On an unspecified date the consortium appealed on points of law. 19. By a judgment delivered on 21 November 2006 and filed with the court registry on 8 January 2007, the Court of Cassation remitted the case to the L’Aquila Court of Appeal. 20. By a judgment delivered on 24 January 2013, filed with the court registry on 12 March 2013, the L’Aquila Court of Appeal acknowledged the Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 348 of 24 October 2007, whereby Article 5 bis of Law no. 359 of 8 August 1992 had been declared unconstitutional, and held that the applicant was entitled to compensation corresponding to the full market value of the property. 21. Therefore, drawing on the court-ordered expert report submitted during the first set of proceedings, the Court of Appeal concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation in the sum of EUR 108,578.96 (equivalent to ITL 210,236,000), which reflected the market value of the land at the time of the expropriation (1991), plus statutory interest. It did not, however, adjust the amount for inflation.

{'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. Mustafa Tunç was born in 1946 and died in 2006. Fecire and Yüksel Tunç, born in 1952 and 1975 respectively, live in Istanbul. They are the father, mother and brother of Cihan Tunç, who was born on 20 November 1983 and died on 13 February 2004. 12. Cihan Tunç joined the army in August 2003 to perform his compulsory military service. The medical report drawn up prior to his conscription stated that there were no contraindications to his conscription. He was not known to suffer from any psychological disorder or any other specific problem. 13. On an unspecified date Cihan Tunç obtained the rank of corporal. Following a training exercise which ended on 31 November 2003, he qualified as a sergeant. 14. He was then assigned to the protection of a site belonging to the private oil company NV Turkse Perenco (“Perenco”), for which the Kocaköy central gendarmerie was providing security services. 15. On 13 February 2004, at about 5.50 a.m., he was injured by gunfire. He was one of the gendarmes on sentry duty and assigned to the guard post known as “tower no. 3”. The incident occurred at the guard post known as “tower no. 2”. 16. Cihan Tunç was transported to hospital immediately after the incident by sergeant A.A. and private M.D., accompanied by private M.S., who was the last person to have seen Cihan Tunç before the incident. 17. Cihan Tunç was pronounced dead shortly after arrival at Diyarbakır Military Hospital. 18. The military prosecutor’s office of the 7th Army Corps, located in Diyarbakır, was informed immediately after the incident and a judicial investigation was opened as a matter of course. 19. A few hours after the incident, a member of that office, military prosecutor E.Ö., went to the hospital to which Cihan Tunç had been admitted and was joined there, on his instructions, by a team of criminal investigation experts from the national gendarmerie. In addition, he sent another team to the scene of the incident and asked the Kocaköy (civilian) prosecutor to attend, in order to supervise the initial investigations and take any measures necessary to secure evidence. 20. On his arrival at the hospital, the military prosecutor ordered that an external examination of the corpse and an autopsy be carried out, under his supervision. 21. Several photos were taken of the corpse. The deceased’s clothing was removed and sent for laboratory analysis with a view to determining the distance from which the shot had been fired. Fingerprints were taken from the deceased and from M.S., who was the last person to have seen Cihan Tunç alive and could therefore have been involved in the incident. Swabs were also taken from their hands, to be checked for traces of gunpowder. Lastly, the deceased’s pockets were emptied and an inventory made of their contents. 22. The prosecutor then instructed forensic doctor L.E. to examine the body with a view to ascertaining the cause of death, and to make any observations he may have on the circumstances of the death. 23. The forensic doctor recorded the following findings: body height, 1.75 metres; the entry wound, with an abrasion ring, was on the right side of the neck, and the exit wound, measuring 4 x 2 centimetres, was on the left side of the back, under the lower edge of the shoulder blade. The forensic doctor noted no trace on the body of blows or violence. He stated that death had occurred following a haemorrhage caused by a bullet wound, and that the bullet had struck the trachea and left lung. He also mentioned that the shot had probably been fired at point-blank range (yakın atış). He based that conclusion on the presence of certain residue material. The relevant part of his report on this point reads as follows: “No skin coloration due to a burn or smoke was observed on the right side of the face or on the neck area. Traces of gunpowder were noted only on the right side of the face, on the curve of the lower jaw.” 24. All of those observations were recorded in a document entitled “Record of the post-mortem examination and autopsy”. 25. The military prosecutor also questioned private M.S. and sergeant A.A. (see paragraphs 37-45 and 46-50 below), who had arrived at the hospital in the vehicle transporting Cihan Tunç’s body. 26. Simultaneously, a team of experts from the Diyarbakır national gendarmerie’s criminal investigation laboratory and the Kocaköy civilian prosecutor went to the site a few hours after the events, having received instructions to that effect from the military prosecutor in charge of the case. 27. According to the Kocaköy prosecutor’s report, the site had a total of six guard posts: a watchtower, known as the “high tower” and five sentry posts. The incident had taken place in an edifice measuring 2 x 2 metres, with a ceiling height of 2.33m and apertures placed 1.5m from the ground. 28. The report further noted that two unspent cartridges and a spent cartridge were found lying on the ground inside the sentry post. The ceiling had an impact mark which resembled that of a shot. Small pieces of cement debris from the ceiling were found on the floor, which was also spattered with large bloodstains. 29. The report also stated that a cursory examination of the deceased’s weapon, a G-3-type rifle which had been placed under lock and key pending the prosecutor’s arrival, indicated that it had been used a short time previously. According to the report, this weapon, as well as that assigned to private M.S., an MG-3-type rifle which seemed not to have been used, had been sent to a laboratory for scientific analysis. 30. Lastly, the report specified that a detailed record had been drawn up, two sketches drawn, photographs taken and a video recording made. 31. In accordance with usual practice, an administrative inquiry was carried out on the orders of the provincial gendarmerie commander, to shed light on the incident and draw any conclusions from it, with a view to ensuring that a similar incident did not occur again. 32. On an unspecified date the deceased’s body, escorted by Staff Sergeant V.Ç., was transported to Ankara, for transfer to Istanbul and release to the family. The Istanbul provincial gendarmerie directorate was asked to contact the family to make arrangements for the funeral. 33. On 16 February 2004 the gendarmerie’s criminal research laboratory issued an expert report (report no. 2004/90/chemical). That report indicated that analysis of the samples taken from the deceased’s hands and from M.S., using the so-called “atomic absorption spectrometry” technique, had revealed the presence of lead, barium and antimony on the deceased’s hands, and of barium and antimony on those of M.S. After noting that those elements were residues from the discharging of a weapon, the report pointed out that gunpowder residues contained micrometric particles which passed very easily from one surface to another and that those residues frequently migrated to the hands when first aid was administered. 34. The report also noted that the tests on Cihan Tunç’s clothes indicated that he had been the victim of a shot fired at point-blank range. 35. On 17 February 2004 the Diyarbakır national police criminal laboratory also issued its expert report (report no. BLS-2004/464), following ballistic tests carried out on the spent cartridge and on the two weapons found at the scene of the incident. The tests indicated that the two rifles were operating normally and confirmed that the spent cartridge came from Cihan Tunç’s weapon. 36. As part of the investigations carried out by the military prosecutor’s office and the gendarmerie’s internal inquiry, numerous servicemen were questioned on the day of the incident. 37. In his evidence to the military prosecutor, M.S. stated: “Cihan arrived at the tower where I was on duty fifteen to twenty minutes before he was due to relive me, since that was where the handover was to take place... He told me that he was feeling down. When I asked him why, he answered ‘Forget it, mind your own business, you wouldn’t understand in any case’. His reply annoyed me, I had the impression he thought I was an idiot. I lit a cigarette and [Cihan] went into the tower ... he began playing with the cocking lever on his rifle. I came in and told him to stop ... He told me to mind my own business and go and have a cigarette ... At that point I went out ... I was five or six metres from the tower when I heard a shot. I ran inside. [Cihan] was lying on the ground ... his rifle was lying on his right hand and the barrel was on his shoulder. I removed the rifle and tried to revive [Cihan] by shaking him, blood had begun to flow... Sergeant A.A. arrived [with other soldiers]”. 38. In response to the prosecutor’s questions, M.S. replied that he had not had a dispute or a problem with Cihan Tunç, either during the duty shift or before it. He confirmed that he had not tried to remove the weapon from his hands at any point. He stated that he had not shot his fellow serviceman. 39. In reply to another question, he stated that, when Cihan Tunç loaded and then unloaded the weapon several times, he had seen unspent cartridges being ejected from the side of the rifle. 40. In the course of his interview with the gendarmerie’s internal investigator, he stated: “Sergeant A.A. came past about 5 a.m., during his patrol, to carry out a check. Cihan Tunç arrived shortly afterwards, at about 5.50 a.m. ... he came into the tower sentry post and began to play with his weapon, he loaded and then unloaded it three or four times, and removed the magazine and put it back in. I asked him to stop, and said that we would both be punished if a senior officer were to come in unannounced... He stopped for a moment. I was standing seven or eight metres away from him. Then, [when] outside the post, I heard the noise of the cocking lever two or three times, followed by the sound of the weapon going off ... [Cihan] was lying on the ground, the weapon was on his chest. I tried to revive him. At that point, sergeant A.A. and the soldiers who were due to relieve us arrived. We carried Cihan close to the [oil] container, then we took him to Diyarbakır Hospital in a Renault car belonging to the Perenco company...” 41. To the question “how do you explain the fact that two unspent cartridges were found at the scene of the incident?” M.S. replied that he did not have an explanation. He added that perhaps these were cartridges which had fallen when Cihan Tunç was loading and unloading the weapon. 42. In response to another question, he said that he was unable to state if the magazine had been in the weapon at the time of the incident, since he had paid no attention to that point. 43. The investigator also asked M.S. about the positions of the weapon and Cihan Tunç. More specifically, he asked if the latter had been sitting or standing while he was manipulating his rifle. M.S. indicated that, while he was inside the post with Cihan Tunç, the latter had pointed the weapon towards the ceiling and charged it, and had then removed the magazine and operated the lever to eject the loaded cartridge. As he left the post, he saw Cihan Tunç sit down on an ammunition chest. While still outside, he heard the sound of the cocking lever a further two times, then a shot. 44. Lastly, the investigator questioned M.S. about the location of the weapons. According to M.S., his own rifle had been on a rack inside the post, and its tripod was folded. Cihan’s weapon had been on his chest. 45. In those two statements, the location where the incident took place is described interchangeably by the terms “duty station no. 4” (4 no.lu nöbet mevzisi) or “tower no. 2” (2 no.lu kule). 46. In his statement to the military prosecutor, sergeant A.A. indicated that he had heard a gunshot and, together with several privates, had rushed to the spot from where the sound had come. They found Cihan Tunç lying on the ground. After attempting to find the injured man’s pulse, A.A. ordered that he be transported to the canteen and then to hospital. 47. With regard to the guard posts, sergeant A.A. indicated that only three were in use. The first was situated at the entrance to the site (nizamiye); the second post, known as the “low tower”, although in reality located in fourth position from the entrance, was also known as “tower no. 2”, since the two preceding posts were not used. The third post was known as “tower no. 3” or the “high tower”. 48. A.A. also stated that, to his knowledge, there had been no problem between Cihan Tunç and M.S. 49. In reply to a question from the prosecutor, he repeated the account of the events given to him by M.S. This account corresponded to the statement made by M.S. 50. A.A. gave similar evidence to the gendarmerie’s internal investigator. 51. Captain S.D. and Staff Sergeant C.Y. indicated that they had become aware of the incident while they were in the Kocaköy barracks. On arrival at the scene, they inspected the premises in a very cursory manner, without disturbing the scene of the incident. They had seen a spent cartridge and two cartridges for a G-3 rifle, one on the ground and the other on the rack. They had also noted blood on the ground. 52. Sergeant A.K. gave the following evidence to the investigator: “Cihan was on duty at post no. 2 ... During my round, at about 5.15 a.m.... everything was normal. I exchanged a few words with Cihan, who was on duty in the high tower... When I arrived at the scene of the incident, M.S. was trying to lift Cihan up.” 53. With regard to the position of the magazine, sergeant A.K. stated that he had paid no attention to that point at the time. However, he remembered that, after carrying Cihan to the canteen, private S.K. had gone back and brought him the weapon, and he had noticed that the magazine was not in place on the rifle. 54. To the question “why did the incident take place at guard post no. 4, where M.S. was on duty, although Cihan Tunç had been assigned to the high tower?” he replied: “I don’t know. It is possible that Cihan left his post to go there because he was almost at the end of his duty period. When I did my round, at about 5.15 a.m., Cihan was at his post in the high tower.” 55. Private S.K. confirmed A.K.’s statement, indicating that the weapon and the magazine were inside the sentry post, but that the magazine was not in the weapon. 56. Private E.C. stated that when he arrived on the scene M.S. was attempting to lift Cihan Tunç up. He also confirmed that the magazine was not in the weapon. 57. The following additional elements emerged from the other statements: Cihan Tunç had arrived one week previously in the Perenco site protection team, which was composed of sixteen persons. He had no known problems and had not had a dispute with the other soldiers. At the time of the incident, private S.S. had been the soldier on sentry duty at the first guard post, located at the entrance to the site. After sergeant A.A. and the other servicemen arrived at the scene of the incident, M.S. was sent to the canteen to seek help. 58. Having regard to the absence of family, social or psychological problems on the part of the deceased, the fact that he had been at a guard post assigned to one of his fellow servicemen and to the position and distance (point-blank range) of the shot, the inquiry concluded that the incident had been an accident. It seems, however, that the possibility of unlawful killing was considered at the beginning of the inquiry. 59. On 30 June 2004, holding that there were no grounds for finding that another person had been responsible for Cihan Tunç’s death, the prosecution service issued a decision not to bring a prosecution. The prosecutor set out all of the evidence gathered during the investigation. He concluded that the shot had been fired when the young man, with his chest bent, had been leaning towards his right side and the barrel of the rifle was pointed towards his neck, adding that this explained, in particular, the bullet impact on the ceiling. However, the prosecutor’s decision did not state why the shot had suddenly been fired. 60. On 16 July 2004 the prosecutor, in response to a request from the applicants’ lawyer, sent her a letter and a copy of the decision, indicating that, in application of the Lawyers Act, the entire case file was at her disposal, and that she could examine it and have a copy made of any item of evidence she thought it appropriate to obtain. 61. Furthermore, a copy of the decision not to bring a prosecution was served in person on Aysel Tunç, a sister of the deceased, on 27 July 2004. 62. The applicants appealed against the decision, alleging that several grey areas remained as to the circumstances of Cihan Tunç’s death. In particular, they claimed that the trajectory followed by the bullet had not been clearly defined. They did not refer to the fact that M.D. had not been questioned, or that no fingerprint tests had been conducted on the weapon. 63. On 14 October 2004 the military court of the Diyarbakır 2nd Air-force Corps upheld the applicants’ appeal and ordered the prosecution service to carry out an additional investigation. In particular, it considered that the bullet’s trajectory and the firing position needed to be clearly established, on the basis of the entry and exit wounds on the body and the impact mark of the bullet on the ceiling. It also indicated that no plausible grounds for suicide had been identified. It added that, in any event, the position of the body at the time of the shot had been unusual for a suicide. Lastly, it stated that no explanation had been provided for the gunshot residue on the hands of M.S., the last person to have seen Cihan Tunç before the incident. 64. On 24 November 2004 the military prosecutor visited the Perenco site, accompanied by three criminal investigation experts. 65. The group went to the guard post where the incident had taken place. Once all of the materials in the case file had been examined, a reconstruction of the events was carried out, assisted by an individual who was similar in build to the deceased. 66. Steps to determine the bullet’s trajectory were taken, including the use of a string, stretched between the impact mark on the ceiling and the barrel of a G-3 rifle. Photographs were taken. 67. The experts noted that the floor was made of concrete, although the previous records described an earthen floor. According to information provided by the site managers, various premises, including several dirt tracks, had been cemented over since the incident, with a view to keeping the soldiers’ uniforms clean. The floors had not been raised during this work. This point was confirmed by measurements which established that the ceiling height was still 2.33 metres, as it had been at the time of the incident. 68. In the light of all the evidence gathered, the experts reached the following conclusion: Cihan Tunç had been sitting or crouching and was holding his rifle in his right hand; while he was attempting to stand up by leaning on his weapon, and with his knees still bent, his hand had pulled the trigger and the shot had been fired. 69. During his visit to the site, the prosecutor questioned private E.C., the other soldiers on duty at the time of the incident having completed their military service. E.C. stated that, when he arrived, M.S. was crouching down behind Cihan Tunç and was trying to lift him up by pulling him under the arms. 70. All of this evidence was set out in a report dated 24 November 2004. 71. On 8 December 2004 the prosecutor completed the investigations and sent the file to the military court, together with a report on the additional investigation requested (report no. 2004/632E.O), in which he set out the measures taken and responded to the shortcomings noted by the court. With regard to the traces of gunshot on the hands, he pointed out that the file contained an expert report indicating that gunshot residue was very volatile and that it could have moved from the dead man’s clothes or hands to M.S.’s hands immediately after the incident. He added that several statements supported that hypothesis, in that they confirmed that M.S. had been in physical contact with the deceased when attempting to lift him up. 72. With regard to the court’s observation that the firing position hardly corresponded to that of an individual who intended to commit suicide and its argument about the lack of a motive, the prosecutor stated that the decision not to prosecute contained no indication that the incident had been a suicide and, indeed, that the hypothesis of suicide had not been entertained. 73. As to determination of the bullet’s trajectory in the light of the impact mark on the ceiling and the entry and exit wounds on the body, the prosecutor stated that the following hypothesis had been accepted: Cihan Tunç had been sitting on an ammunition box and playing with the rifle’s cocking lever and magazine; while he was holding the weapon, with the magazine removed and at an angle on his right side, he had leaned forward and towards his right side with the intention of using the rifle to support himself in standing up, his hand on the part of the weapon near the trigger, and the shot had gone off; the bullet had entered through the right side of his neck and emerged under the lower edge of the left shoulder-blade, before hitting the ceiling; thus, Cihan Tunç had not committed suicide, he had been the victim of an accident. The prosecutor added that he had organised a reconstruction of the scene on 24 November 2004 in order to ascertain the credibility of this hypothesis, having regard to the bullet’s entry and exit points, the point of impact on the ceiling and the deceased man’s build, and that the conclusions of the reconstruction confirmed this sequence of events. 74. The record of the reconstruction of the incident was attached to this report. 75. On 17 December 2004 the military court dismissed the applicants’ appeal. 76. A letter dated 21 December 2004 was sent to the applicants’ lawyer, informing her of that decision. Neither the date of posting nor the date of receipt of that letter is specified in the case file. The applicants submitted that they had received the letter in question at the end of December 2004. The Government made no submissions on this point. 77. The applicants submitted a private medical report, prepared at their request by a British expert, Dr Allen M. Anscombe, and dated 11 October 2005. The expert drew up his report in English, on the basis of his examination of a number of documents from the case file which had been translated into that language. The relevant parts of this report read as follows: “I am a Consultant Forensic Pathologist, accredited by the Home Office Policy Advisory Board for Forensic Pathology (...). In preparing this report I have been provided with English translations of the following documents relating to Cihan Tunç: 4. Three colour images of the deceased, one taken in life and two taken post mortem, when the deceased is apparently within a coffin. 5. An image of a G-3 rifle. ... The deceased was taken to a nearby Military Hospital and the autopsy examination carried out later on the day of his death. Such promptness should be regarded as a good practice. ... Initial examination then appears to involve removing the clothing from the deceased and the photographing it, collection of samples for forensic laboratory investigation, and recording detail content of pockets, etc. In itself, this process appears to have been carried out appropriately, with collection of appropriate samples given the nature of the incident. Having completed this stage, the [autopsy] report appears to indicate that the pathologist Dr. E. was ‘called in’, by which I understand had his first opportunity to examine the deceased. If my understanding is correct, this would cause me some considerable concern because, particularly in the case of shooting fatality, the pathologist should be given as much information as possible as regards the scene and state of the deceased, the latter including the opportunity to inspect and examine the undisturbed clothing. ... The remainder of the details of the autopsy examination are somewhat brief and sketchy. Otherwise, the essential autopsy examination findings are included in the report. The conclusion as to the cause of death is reasonable in the light of the stated autopsy findings (i.e. there are no internally inconsistent findings and conclusions). ... Cihan Tunç sustained a gunshot entry wound to the front side of his neck, and an exit wound on the back of the left shoulder. The photographs demonstrate a small entry wound, and a larger exit wound, and there is in my opinion no possibility that entry and exit have been got “the wrong way round”. If the bullet has passed through the deceased and embedded itself in the ceiling, then the only way that I can conceive this trajectory of being achievable, is if the deceased was bent over the moment the gun discharged. The autopsy report indicated that traces of unburned gunpowder were found on the right side of the face and on the curve of the lower jaw, but there was no smoke staining or burning of the skin. This indicates that the muzzle end of the barrel was close to but not in contact with the skin of the deceased. Whilst such discharge deposits depend to some extent on the nature of the weapon and ammunition used, the likely range of fire (i.e. muzzle to skin distance) would be in the region of 15-30 cm. I am informed that the length of a G3 rifle, believed to be the sort used by the deceased, is 102.3cm. From the image provided, the trigger is approximately two thirds of the length of the rifle away from the muzzle. Depending on the length of the deceased’s arm, the trigger might just be reachable (say with an outstretched finger), if he was bent over the rifle at the time. The only two other possibilities I can think of are that either the rifle malfunctioned and discharged unexpectedly for some reason (e. g. it was dropped on the floor, or that the rifle was fired by another person – however, this would require that person to be lying on the floor pointing the rifle upwards with the deceased bent over the muzzle (his neck at a distance of 15 – 30 cm) at the time. There were no autopsy signs that the deceased had been involved in a struggle or a fight.” 78. On 13 January 2005 the applicants’ lawyer brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, seeking payment of pecuniary compensation on account of Cihan Tunç’s death. 79. Following the dismissal of the notice of claim on procedural grounds, a new claim was lodged on 9 September 2005. The applicants claimed 3,500 Turkish lira (TRY) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for each of the parents, and TRY 1,000 for each of the deceased’s seven brothers and sisters. 80. On 9 October 2006 the expert appointed by the Supreme Military Administrative Court to evaluate the pecuniary damage submitted his report. He estimated the damage at TRY 721 for the deceased’s father and TRY 8,779 for his mother. The parties did not challenge that evaluation. 81. On 10 January 2007 the court allowed the applicants’ claims in part. It noted that the death had been caused by careless handling of the service rifle. It considered that this implied a lack of sufficient training in handling weapons and negligence in the supervision and protection of conscripts. In consequence, it found that the death was partly imputable to negligence by the authorities. Having regard also to the existence of contributory negligence by the deceased, and pointing out that it was bound by the claim and could not rule ultra petita, the Supreme Military Administrative Court awarded the following sums: - TRY 3,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the deceased’s mother; - TRY 400 in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the deceased’s father; - TRY 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to each of the deceased’s brothers and sisters. Those amounts bore late-payment interest, to be calculated from the date of the incident to the date of payment. 82. On 12 June 2007 the authorities made a payment of TRY 23,500 (approximately 13,200 euros (EUR) on that date) to the Bakırköy Enforcement Office, to which a request had been made by the applicants’ lawyer. 83. The applicants claim that they had been unaware of those proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court until they were mentioned by the Government, and that no sum has been paid to them by their lawyer. 84. On 21 April 2004 the Mehmetçik Foundation, an emanation of the armed forces which was set up to support the families of soldiers who die in service, awarded 4,916,700,000 former Turkish lira (a little over 3,000 euros at that date) to the deceased man’s family in financial assistance.

{'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 Kisa Abdul-Kadirovna Mezhiyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Grozny. 6. The applicant lived with her husband, Mr Mauda Mezhiyev, in Grozny. In 1999 they temporarily left Chechnya for Ingushetia, but returned in 2000. Her husband was a bus driver. When they returned to Chechnya he resumed his work. The applicant worked as a conductor on the same bus. Usually they worked for two weeks and then had two weeks off. 7. In March 2001 the applicant’s husband’s employer asked him to work for the two weeks which were supposed to be rest weeks, because the bus station did not have enough buses. He was asked to use his own bus, which was in good condition. The applicant’s husband agreed. 8. The applicant and her husband worked on route no. 7, which connected the Grozny bus station with Altayskaya Street. It went along Lenin Street and Pobeda Prospekt, which were connected by a bridge over the river Sunzha in the centre of Grozny. The bridge was controlled by, and observed from, two checkpoints of the Russian federal forces. 9. According to the applicant, in 2001 Russian engineer units checked the main streets of Grozny every morning for explosive devices that might have been installed by rebel fighters. Lenin Street and Pobeda Prospekt were also checked regularly. 10. In the morning of 6 March 2001 the applicant was working with her husband on route no. 7. When they approached the bridge, it appeared that it had been closed by Russian servicemen. They had therefore to cross another bridge, in Krasnykh Frontovikov Street. They finished the first trip on route no. 7 between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. The applicant enclosed statements by four witnesses, bus drivers G.Sh., U. M. and V.M., and conductor K.M., corroborating that the bridge between Lenin Street and Pobeda Prospekt had been closed by the military that morning, before the explosion. According to the Government, the closure of the bridge in Lenin Street was evidence that an inspection was being carried out, because it was a strategically important area and took a long time to be checked. 11. In the afternoon the applicant and her husband made another trip on route no. 7 from Altayskaya Street to Grozny bus station. At about 13-14 minutes to 3 p.m., after they had stopped at the central market and had gone further towards the bus station, they saw another no. 7 bus, operated by driver Sh., crossing the bridge. It was followed by buses nos. 1 and 18 and a convoy of military vehicles. The convoy was headed by a tank, which was followed by three or four Ural vehicles and an armoured personnel carrier (hereinafter “the APC”). The convoy went straight on, but the APC turned left near the bridge and stopped. 12. When the applicant and her husband saw that the bridge was open, they decided not to make a detour into Krasnykh Frontovikov Street, but to drive across the bridge. They approached the bridge two or three minutes after the military convoy had passed through. 13. Before crossing the bridge bus drivers always had to register at the checkpoint and pay a fee of ten Russian roubles (RUB). At the checkpoint the applicant’s husband stopped the bus, which had some twenty passengers on board, and got out to register and pay the fee. However, the soldier at the checkpoint neither checked his documents nor took the money for the fee, but told the applicant’s husband to move forward quickly. 14. When the applicant’s husband’s bus moved towards the bridge, he saw another no. 7 bus coming in the opposite direction. Since the bridge was too narrow for two buses, the applicant’s husband stopped to let that bus pass. While the other bus was passing, the applicant was looking at the bridge but noticed nothing suspicious. When their bus moved forward again, there was a powerful explosion at the edge of the bridge under the front left wheel of the bus on the driver’s side. 15. Immediately after the explosion the military closed the checkpoint and did not allow anybody to approach the bus. The applicant’s brother, V. M., who was also a bus driver, happened to be behind them. When he saw the explosion, he tried to drive through to the bus which had been blown up, to take the wounded to hospital, but was not allowed to by the military, who opened fire on his bus. Three bullets hit the windscreen, and V. M. was forced to make a U-turn. He decided to approach the bridge from the opposite side and drove towards the other bridge in Krasnykh Frontovikov Street to make a detour. 16. After the explosion, injured and frightened passengers were screaming, and the applicant lost consciousness. When she came back to her senses the last passenger, a woman with a child, was leaving the bus. The applicant asked her to help, because she herself was injured. By that time the bus was surrounded by federal servicemen. She heard one of them saying: “Bastards, they’re getting out alive”. 17. As the applicant was trying to get out of the bus, one of the servicemen came to help her. He put a tourniquet on her arm to stop the bleeding and bandaged her leg with his belt. Then he carried the applicant out of the bus and put her next to her husband, who was sitting near the wheel which had exploded. It appeared that he had been thrown out of the bus by the blast. He was badly injured and required urgent medical aid. 18. At that time V. M. was driving along Krasnykh Frontovikov Street There he saw an ambulance driving in the opposite direction. He stopped it and asked its driver to take those injured in the explosion to hospital. The driver agreed and followed V. M.’s bus. They approached the blown-up bus from Lenin Street. However, according to the applicant, the servicemen again refused to let anybody near the bus and fired shots in the air. Nevertheless, V. M. and the ambulance driver ran to the bus. They carried the applicant and her husband to the ambulance and put other passengers in V. M.’s bus. They took them all to Grozny Town Hospital no. 9. 19. As nobody was allowed near the bus immediately, the applicant’s husband, who was bleeding heavily from numerous shrapnel wounds, was only taken to hospital fifty minutes after the explosion. He died in the hospital fifteen to twenty minutes later. On the same day his relatives took his body from the hospital for burial. 20. The applicant was also badly injured, in the head, arm and leg. She had surgery, and her left arm was amputated above the elbow. The next day, 7 March 2001, her relatives took her to a hospital in Stariye Atagi. They did not immediately tell her about her husband’s death, to spare her worry while she was recovering. They told her that he had been taken to a hospital in Makhachkala. She was told about his death about a month later when she was feeling better. During the following year the applicant had to undergo outpatient treatment for her injuries, which caused her severe pain. 21. On 6 March 2001, thus on the very day of the explosion, the Grozny Prosecutor’s Office opened investigation file no. 11076 in connection with the explosion. According to the Government, the ground for the initiation of the criminal case was the availability of sufficient information pointing to the signs of the crime under Articles 105 § 1 and 205 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The case was subsequently transferred to the Leninsky District Prosecutor’s Office. 22. On the same date the investigating authorities examined and photographed the scene of the explosion. They also heard two servicemen of the checkpoint who described the events which had taken place shortly before and after the explosion. It appears from their statements that they could see the bridge well, but none of them had seen “a red car” mentioned in the report of 9 March 2001 on an on-site investigation (see paragraph 24 below). The Government, accepting that the fact that the servicemen could see the bridge well, maintained that this did not mean that the bridge was wholly controlled by the servicemen and that unforeseen circumstances could happen. 23. According to the Government, the official check concluded that the servicemen at checkpoint no. 17 could not observe the moment of planting of the explosive because of the distance. 24. From the report of 9 March 2001 on an on-site investigation, written by a psychologist who was attached to the mobile unit of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, it appears that several residents of Grozny had confirmed that shortly before the explosion a red VAZ 2107 car had gone on to the bridge over the river at high speed, had made a U-turn, the driver or a passenger had put something at the edge of the bridge, and the car had immediately left. An internal enquiry had established that the personnel on duty at the checkpoint at the time had not seen who had placed the explosive device and when this had occurred. This report was transmitted to the prosecuting authorities. 25. According to the applicant, by March 2001 the bridge over Sunzha was partially destroyed and was in such a poor condition that no “red car” could have made a U-turn on the bridge, let alone making at high speed. She also stated that no car could have travelled between federal checkpoints no. 17 and no. 19 unnoticed or without the authority of those agents of the Government’s forces in Chechnya who were manning the checkpoints at the material time. 26. On 6 May 2001 the preliminary investigation was suspended pursuant to Article 195 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 27. The applicant learned from her relatives that the investigation had been opened, but she did not apply to the prosecuting authorities on her own initiative. However, as for more than one year she had neither been called to the prosecutor’s office for questioning, nor had she been informed of the investigative measures taken, on 31 October 2003 she requested to be informed of the progress of the investigation and to be given the decision to institute the criminal investigation of the explosion. 28. On 2 November 2003 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic forwarded her request to the Leninsky District Prosecutor’s Office. 29. On 6 November 2003 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Leninsky District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 6 May 2001 and reopened the preliminary investigation. On the same day, the applicant was questioned and granted victim status. She was also provided with a copy of the decision to institute the criminal investigation of the explosion of 6 March 2001. According to the Government, this copy was given to her only on 9 November 2003. 30. On 26 November 2003 a medical expert examination was ordered, which confirmed the injuries that the applicant had suffered as a result of the explosion. The expert report was submitted on 9 January 2004. Two other medical expert reports concerning two other wounded persons had been drawn up on 29 December 2003. 31. On 12 and 24 December 2003 two witnesses testified, inter alia, that they had heard a detonation in March 2001 in the afternoon. 32. On 1 January 2004 an expert examination of wrecks of the bus concerned was carried out and finalised on 24 March 2004. 33. On 6 January 2004 one of the injured persons who had travelled in the bus was heard. On the same day, the preliminary investigation was suspended under Article 208 paragraph 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, on 1 April 2004 the Prosecutor of the Leninsky District Prosecutor’s Office quashed this decision and resumed the investigation. 34. On 9 April 2004 the head of the Leninsky district department of the interior in Grozny was ordered to identify persons travelling in the bus before the explosion and those who were concerned by the crime in question. On the same day, the investigator drew up a record of splinters collected at the place of the explosion. 35. On 10 April 2004 an expertise in technology and explosive was ordered. 36. On 30 April 2004 the preliminary investigation was again suspended, this time under Article 208 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 37. On 9 March 2005 an expert examination of splinters found at the scene of the explosion was conducted. According to the results of the examination, the objects submitted for examination were splinters from an artillery shell of 122-mm calibre. The explosion had most likely been caused by a makeshift explosive device consisting of the artillery shell and an activating device. It was not possible to establish the precise construction of the activating device, because no parts of it were submitted for examination. On the surfaces of the objects submitted for examination were found micro particles of a high-explosive substance, trotyl, with which artillery shells of 122 mm calibre are loaded. The maximum radius the artillery shell splinters would scatter is 800 metres. 38. As since her questioning in November 2003 the applicant had not been provided with any information on the progress of the investigation, on 2 May 2006 she applied to the Leninsky District Prosecutor’s Office for leave to study the case file. 39. On 6 May 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Leninsky District Prosecutor’s informed the applicant that the investigation had been suspended and that she could study the case file. 40. On 27 May 2006 the applicant came to study the case file. Investigator S. provided her with copies of the following documents: the report of the inspection of the scene of the blast on 6 March 2001, photographs of the explosion scene, psychologist K.’s report of 9 March 2001, the transcript of the applicant’s questioning on 6 November 2003, and the reports of the expert examinations of 26 November 2003 and 9 March 2005. According to the investigator, the case file contained nothing else that could be of interest to the applicant, did not allow the applicant to study the whole case file and make photocopies of the documents. He did not confirm his refusal in writing. It is not clear whether the applicant requested him to do so. 41. According to the applicant, the investigator told her that no servicemen from the checkpoint near the bridge had been questioned. When she expressed her doubts as to the credibility of the report of 9 March 2001, he allegedly said that Russians had made the report to divert suspicions from them. 42. On 20 June 2006 the applicant complained to the Leninsky District Prosecutor’s Office that the investigation was ineffective. 43. On 28 June 2006 she lodged a complaint with the Leninsky District Court concerning the suspension of the investigation, its ineffectiveness and procrastination, and failure to provide her with the complete investigation file. It is not clear whether the complaints have been examined. 44. On 6 December 2006 the preliminary investigation was suspended. This decision was subsequently quashed and the investigation was resumed. However, on 9 December 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Leninsky District Prosecutor Office closed the criminal investigation opened against unidentified persons under Article 205 of the Criminal Code concerning terrorism. According to the applicant, as a general rule, the Russian authorities opened criminal proceedings under this provision whenever explosions or arson attacks or other acts threatening the lives of civilians, or likely to cause significant damage to property, or having any other adverse consequences for the public, were committed in Chechnya by members of rebel armed units opposing the federal troops. Thus, the investigators must have obtained some evidence to the effect that the explosion on the bridge was not perpetrated by rebel fighters, and there was no “red car”. 45. On 30 June 2009 the Deputy Head of the Investigation Office of the Investigation Committee quashed this decision and resumed the investigation. 46. The Court requested the Government to provide a copy of the complete investigation file in the criminal case instituted in relation to the explosion that caused the applicant’s husband’s death. Initially, the Government refused to do so, citing the absence of guarantees from the Court in terms of non-disclosure of confidential data. According to the Government, the applicant and her representatives provided no guarantees that the case file would be kept confidential. Taking into account a substantial volume of complaints of violations of human rights in the territory of the Chechen Republic during counterterrorism operations, disclosure of legally protected information contained in documents of criminal cases under investigation would lead to substantial damage to the legitimate interests of both the State and participants in criminal trials. 47. On 28 October 2009 the Government finally provided the main parts of the relevant criminal case file. 48. The criminal investigation was still pending in June 2011, thus ten years and three months after it had been initiated.

{'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 1994 and currently resides in Moscow. 7. The applicant is a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnic origin. He lived in the village of Osh in Kyrgyzstan together with his parents and sister. All of his relatives are Uzbek. After the mass disorder and inter-ethnic clashes that took place in the region in June 2010, he left Kyrgyzstan for Russia to study at a college. It appears that his next-of-kin remain in the country. 8. According to the applicant, he has lived in Russia since September 2010. 9. On 3 February 2011 the Kyrgyz authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in June 2010, namely, participation in mass rioting, kidnapping, destruction of property and damage to property. 10. On 4 February 2011 the applicant was put on a wanted list. 11. On 25 January 2013 the applicant was arrested in Russia. The Kyrgyz authorities confirmed their intention to seek his extradition. 12. On 20 February 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan sent his Russian counterpart a letter containing assurances that the applicant would benefit from legal assistance, and would not be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. He further asserted that the extradition request was related to ordinary criminal offences and was not aimed at persecuting the applicant on religious or political grounds, or grounds relating to his nationality. 13. On 22 April 2013 the applicant’s lawyer submitted to the Prosecutor General of Russia a letter referring to reports of international organisations and the Court’s case-law evidencing that there was a high risk that the applicant would be subjected to inhuman treatment if he were extradited. 14. On 3 May and 23 July 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan supplemented the extradition request with an assurance that following the applicant’s extradition, Russian diplomatic staff would be given an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility. 15. On 13 August 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant’s extradition. He held that there were no grounds in Russian or international law for refusing to extradite the applicant. The applicant challenged that decision before the courts. 16. On 9 September 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the extradition order, finding as follows: “The court has not established any circumstances which, under paragraph 1 of Article 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia, would exclude the possibility of extraditing an individual residing on Russian territory to a foreign state ... ... judicial review proceedings in respect of the local migration authority’s refusal to grant refugee status do not impede the decision-making process in respect of the extradition order ... The court takes into account the arguments of the defence with regard to information contained in reports of international organisations, judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and other documents ... relating to the situation in the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, including deficiencies relating to the investigation of crimes and the conduct of judicial proceedings. However, this information cannot be regarded as sufficient grounds for refusing to extradite an Uzbek who was involved in the events that took place in Kyrgyzstan in June 2010 and has been charged with a criminal offence. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Russia stated that it had no information which could prevent the extradition of [the applicant] to Kyrgyzstan. Furthermore, ... in addition to the guarantees that [the applicant] will not be subjected to torture, inhuman, degrading treatment and punishment etc. ... the requesting party provided additional guarantees. The Kyrgyz authorities gave assurances that Russian diplomats would be allowed to visit [the applicant] ... ... the court notes that in the course of the refugee proceedings [the applicant] stated that his relatives (also Uzbek) lived in the Republic of Kyrgyzstan and had not been subjected to any persecution. The [applicant’s] allegation that the law-enforcement authorities extort money from his relatives is groundless.” 17. On 18 September 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal. On 6 November 2013 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court in the following wording: “... The available materials do not indicate that [the applicant] will be deprived of the guarantees provided by the Kyrgyz Republic and that if he is extradited his rights prescribed by international law and Kyrgyz legislation will be violated, that he will be persecuted on the grounds of race, sex, nationality, ethnic origin or political views, or that there will be some threat to his life or health.” 18. It appears that the extradition order became enforceable on 6 November 2013. 19. On 26 January 2013 the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention with a view to extradition until 24 March 2013. 20. On 19 March 2013 the same court extended the applicant’s detention until 25 May 2013. On 22 March 2013 the applicant and his lawyer lodged appeals against that decision. The Moscow City Court dismissed the appeals on 13 May 2013. 21. On 21 May 2013 the Babushkinskiy District Court further extended the applicant’s detention pending extradition until 25 July 2013. Fresh appeals by the applicant and his lawyer were lodged accordingly on 22 and 24 May 2013. On 10 July 2013 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeals. 22. On 23 July 2013 the same District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 25 September 2013. On 24 July 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. On 18 September 2013 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal. 23. On 23 September 2013 the District Court examined the matter of the applicant’s continued detention and extended it until 24 November 2013. On 24 September 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. The Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on 13 November 2013. 24. On 21 November 2013 the same District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 January 2014. On 25 November 2013, the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against that decision. 25. On 22 January 2014 the applicant was released from custody because the Court had applied interim measures pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 26. On 25 March 2013 the applicant applied for refugee status. He had not lodged any such applications between 2010 and 2012. 27. On 9 July 2013 the Moscow migration authority refused to grant refugee status to the applicant. It stated that the applicant had claimed that he could not return to Kyrgyzstan because he would be prosecuted for a crime he had not committed on the grounds of his Uzbek origin. 28. The Moscow migration authority also stated that, according to the applicant, after the ethnic conflict in June 2010 in Osh, he had been oppressed by Kyrgyz nationals and had had to leave Kyrgyzstan for Russia, where he had been living since 24 September 2010. According to the applicant, he enrolled in the Rzhev college in September 2010 without any exams or payment under an agreement concluded between the Osh town council and the college. However, he left the college without pursuing his studies because he had to find work to earn money and support himself. The applicant asserted that he was not a member of any political party or religious organisation. 29. The Moscow migration authority rejected the applicant’s request on the ground that he had not presented any evidence that there was a real risk of such persecution. First, all of his family members were Uzbek and they were not being persecuted but were living in Kyrgyzstan safely. Second, it was doubtful that the applicant had been persecuted because of his ethnic origin given that the Osh town council had arranged his studies on favourable terms, free of charge, without requiring any qualifications or documents. Therefore the applicant had no grounds to fear for his life. The Moscow migration authority concluded that his submissions as to why he was unwilling to return to Kyrgyzstan did not amount to a well-founded fear of being persecuted in his country of origin on the grounds of religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, as he had not put forward any valid reasons as to why he was afraid of becoming a victim of persecution on the said grounds. 30. The applicant appealed to the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”). He stated that the Rzhev college had been opened by the Uzbek expatriate community for young people who had had to leave Kyrgyzstan after the disorder in June 2010. He was not aware of any agreement with the town council, which was headed by a mayor with xenophobic views. The only reason for such an agreement might be, according to him, the intention to expel young Uzbeks from Osh. He also mentioned that the peaceful life of his relatives in Kyrgyzstan referred to by the Moscow migration authority presupposed only that they had not been arrested on absurd grounds. They had been constantly subjected to discrimination on the ground of their origin and the Kyrgyz authorities had extorted money from them on account of the crimes of which he had been accused. The fact that his family members were still alive did not reduce the threat to his own life if he were to return to Kyrgyzstan. 31. On 6 September 2013 the FMS upheld the refusal decision. It reiterated that the applicant’s relatives were not being persecuted. It also found that the accusation against him was not politically motivated. 32. On 10 September 2013 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a request with the Russian Representative’s Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) to clarify whether there was a real risk of the applicant being subjected to ill-treatment if he were extradited to Kyrgyzstan. On 12 September 2013 the UNHCR replied that after the events of 2010 the Kyrgyz authorities had continued to prosecute and arrest ethnic Uzbeks. The only conviction against an ethnic Kyrgyz had been quashed recently by a higher court. Thus, there was a real threat that ethnic Uzbeks accused of offences during the mass disorder in June 2010, including the applicant, would be subjected to torture and other inhuman treatment and punishment in the event of extradition to Kyrgyzstan. 33. On 22 October 2013 the applicant sought judicial review of the decision of 6 September 2013. 34. On 22 January 2014 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow upheld the decision to refuse the applicant’s application for refugee status. The District Court considered that the applicant had failed to substantiate his fears of persecution in Kyrgyzstan and that his allegations of unlawful criminal charges against him fell outside the scope of the refugee status proceedings. The District Court pointed out that his application for refugee status contained no indications that he had been previously accused or convicted of a criminal offence, or that he had been a member of any political, religious or military organisations. It also took into account the fact that the applicant had not applied for refugee status until after his placement in detention. 35. In his appeal against the judgment of 22 January 2014 the applicant requested a rigorous examination of his arguments related to the risk of ill‑treatment. He again referred to various reports of international organisations and reputable NGOs to support his position, including the UNHCR’s letter of 12 September 2013 in respect of himself and four other individuals of Uzbek ethnic origin. 36. On 20 May 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal, reiterating the conclusions of the migration authorities and the first‑instance court. 37. For a summary of relevant international and domestic law and practice see Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 71-98, 2 October 2012. 38. For a number of relevant reports and items of information, see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia (no. 49747/11, §§ 30-46, 16 October 2012). 39. In April 2012 Kyrgyzstan submitted its Second report on implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, for the period from 1999 to 2011 (CAT/C/KGZ/2). It reads as follows: “6. The concept of ‘torture’ was introduced into the Criminal Code in 2003, when the Code was amended with article 305-1, entitled ‘Torture’, which reads as follows: ‘The deliberate infliction of physical or mental suffering on any person for the purpose of extracting information or a confession, punishing a person for an act the person has committed or of which he or she is suspected, as well as for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person to commit certain actions, when such acts are committed by an official or by any other person with the knowledge or consent of an official, shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty of 3 to 5 years, with or without disqualification to hold certain posts for 1 to 3 years.’ ... 15. Under article 24 of the Constitution, everyone has the right to freedom and security of person. No one may be arrested for more than 48 hours without a judicial order, and every person under arrest must urgently, and in any case within 48 hours of the arrest, be presented before a court so as to ascertain whether the arrest is legal. Every arrested person has the right to verify the legality of the arrest in accordance with the procedures and time frames established by law. In the absence of justification for an arrest, the person in question must be released immediately. 16. In all cases, arrested persons must be informed immediately of the reasons for their arrest. Their rights must be explained to them and ensured, including the right to a medical examination and to receive the assistance of a physician. From the actual moment of arrest, the security of arrested persons is ensured; they are provided with the opportunity to defend themselves on their own, to have the qualified legal assistance of a lawyer and to be defended by a defence lawyer ...” 40. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considered the fifth to seventh periodic reports of Kyrgyzstan and in February 2013 made the following concluding observations (CERD/C/KGZ/CO/5-7): “6. The Committee notes with concern that, according to the State party’s report (CERD/C/KGZ/5-7, para. 12) and other reports, Uzbeks were the main victims of the June 2010 events but were also the most prosecuted and condemned. While noting that the State party itself has recognized this situation and is considering ways to correct it, the Committee remains deeply concerned about reports of biased attitudes based on ethnicity in investigations, prosecutions, condemnations and sanctions imposed on those charged and convicted in relation to the June 2010 events, who were mostly of Uzbek origin. The Committee is also concerned about information provided in the State party’s report relating to evidence of coercion to confess to crimes that the persons did not commit, pressure on relatives by representatives of law enforcement agencies, denial of procedural rights ..., violations of court procedures, threats and insults to the accused and their counsel, attempts to attack the accused and his relatives which according to the State party resulted in a violation of the right to a fair trial ... [T]he Committee recommends that the State party in the context of the reform of its judicial system: (a) Initiate or set up a mechanism to review all cases of persons condemned in connection with the June 2010 events, from the point of view of respecting all necessary guarantees for a fair trial; (b) Investigate, prosecute and condemn, as appropriate, all persons responsible for human rights violations during the June 2010 events, irrespective of their ethnic origin and their status; ... 7. While noting information provided by the State party, the Committee remains concerned at reports that a great number of persons, mostly from minority groups, in particular Uzbeks, have been detained and have been subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment on the basis of their ethnicity following the June 2010 events. The Committee is also concerned at information that women from minority groups were victims of acts of violence, including rape, during, and in the aftermath of the June 2010 events. The Committee is particularly concerned that all such acts have not yet been investigated and those responsible have not been prosecuted and punished (arts. 5 and 6). In line with its general recommendation No. 31 (2005), the Committee recommends that the State party, without any distinction based on the ethnic origin of the victims, take appropriate measures to: (a) Register and document all cases of torture, ill-treatment and violence against women from minority groups, including rape; (b) Conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations; (c) Prosecute and punish those responsible, including police or security forces; ...” 41. The UN Committee against Torture considered Kyrgyzstan’s second periodic report and in December 2013 issued concluding observations (CAT/C/KGZ/CO/2), which read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Impunity for, and failure to investigate, widespread acts of torture and ill‑treatment 5. The Committee is deeply concerned about the ongoing and widespread practice of torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, in particular while in police custody to extract confessions. These confirm the findings of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/HRC/19/61/Add.2, paras. 37 et seq.), and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/20/12, paras. 40–41). While the Kyrgyz delegation acknowledged that torture is practised in the country, and affirmed its commitment to combat it, the Committee remains seriously concerned about the substantial gap between the legislative framework and its practical implementation, as evidenced partly by the lack of cases during the reporting period in which State officials have been prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for torture (arts. 2, 4, 12 and 16). 6. The Committee is gravely concerned at the State party’s persistent pattern of failure to conduct prompt, impartial and full investigations into the many allegations of torture and ill-treatment and to prosecute alleged perpetrators, which has led to serious underreporting by victims of torture and ill-treatment, and impunity for State officials allegedly responsible (arts. 2, 11, 12, 13 and 16). In particular, the Committee is concerned about: (a) The lack of an independent and effective mechanism for receiving complaints and conducting impartial and full investigations into allegations of torture. Serious conflicts of interest appear to prevent existing mechanisms from undertaking effective, impartial investigations into complaints received; (b) Barriers at the pre-investigation stage, particularly with regard to forensic medical examinations, which in many cases are not carried out promptly following allegations of abuse, are performed by medical professionals who lack independence, and/or are conducted in the presence of other public officials, leading to the failure of the medical personnel to adequately record detainees’ injuries, and consequently to investigators’ failure to open formal investigations into allegations of torture, for lack of evidence; (c) The apparent practice by investigators of valuing the testimonies of individuals implicated in torture over those of complainants, and of dismissing complaints summarily; and (d) The failure of the judiciary to effectively investigate torture allegations raised by criminal defendants and their lawyers in court. Various sources report that judges commonly ignore information alleging the use of torture, including reports from independent medical examinations. ... 7. The Committee remains seriously concerned by the State party’s response to the allegations of torture in individual cases brought to the attention of the Committee, and particularly by the State party’s authorities’ refusal to carry out full investigations into many allegations of torture on the grounds that preliminary enquiries revealed no basis for opening a full investigation. The Committee is gravely concerned by the case of Azimjan Askarov, an ethnic Uzbek human rights defender prosecuted on criminal charges in connection with the death of a police officer in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010, which has been raised by several Special Rapporteurs, including the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (A/HRC/22/47/Add.4, para. 248; A/HRC/19/55/Add.2, para. 212). Mr. Askarov has alleged that he was beaten severely by police on numerous occasions immediately following his detention and throughout the course of the criminal proceedings against him, and that he was subjected to repeated violations of procedural safeguards such as prompt access to a lawyer and to an effective, independent medical examination. The Committee notes that independent forensic medical examinations appear to have substantiated Mr. Askarov’s allegations of torture in police custody, and have confirmed resulting injuries including persistent visual loss, traumatic brain injury, and spinal injury. Information before the Committee suggests that Mr. Askarov’s complaints of torture have been raised on numerous occasions with the Prosecutor’s office, as well as with the Kyrgyz Ombudsman’s office, and with Bazar-Korgon District Court, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court. To date, however, the State party’s authorities have declined to open a full investigation into his claims, relying on allegedly coerced statements made by Mr. Askarov while in police custody that he had no complaints. The Committee understands that the State party is presently considering the possibility of further investigating these claims. The Committee is concerned by the State party’s refusal to undertake full investigations into allegations of torture regarding other cases raised during the review, including those of Nargiza Turdieva and Dilmurat Khaidarov (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16). ... 8. The Committee remains concerned at the lack of full and effective investigations into the numerous allegations that members of the law enforcement bodies committed torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and excessive use of force during and following the inter-ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010. The Committee is concerned by reports that investigations, prosecutions, condemnations and sanctions imposed in relation to the June 2010 events were mostly directed against persons of Uzbek origin, as noted by sources including the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in 2013 (CERD/C/KGZ/CO/5-7, paras. 6–7). The Committee further regrets the lack of information provided by the State party on the outcome of the review of 995 criminal cases relating to the June 2010 violence (arts. 4, 12, 13 and 16). ... Coerced confessions 13. The Committee is seriously concerned at numerous, consistent and credible reports that the use of forced confessions as evidence in courts is widespread. While noting that the use of evidence obtained through unlawful means is prohibited by law, it is deeply concerned that in practice there is a heavy reliance on confessions within the criminal justice system. The Committee is further concerned at reports that judges have frequently declined to act on allegations made by criminal defendants in court, or to allow the introduction into evidence of independent medical reports that would tend to confirm the defendant’s claims of torture for the purpose of obtaining a confession. The Committee regrets the lack of information provided by the State party on cases in which judges or prosecutors have initiated investigations into torture claims raised by criminal defendants in court, and is alarmed that no official has been prosecuted and punished for torture even in the single case brought to its attention in which a conviction obtained by torture was excluded from evidence by a court – that of Farrukh Gapiurov, who was acquitted by the Osh Municipal Court of involvement in the June 2010 violence (arts. 2 and 15).” 42. The Kyrgyzstan chapter of the 2013 Annual Report by Amnesty International, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “Torture and other ill-treatment remained pervasive throughout the country and law enforcement and judicial authorities failed to act on such allegations. The authorities continued to fail to impartially and effectively investigate the June 2010 violence and its aftermath and provide justice for the thousands of victims of serious crimes and human rights violations, including crimes against humanity. Ethnic Uzbeks continued to be targeted disproportionately for detention and prosecution in relation to the June 2010 violence. ... The Osh City Prosecutor stated in April that out of 105 cases which had gone to trial in relation to the June 2010 violence, only two resulted in acquittals. Only one of those cases involved an ethnic Uzbek, Farrukh Gapirov, the son of human rights defender Ravshan Gapirov. He was released after the appeal court found his conviction had been based on his confession which had been obtained under torture. However, no criminal investigation against the police officers responsible for his torture was initiated. By contrast, the first – and, to date, the only – known conviction of ethnic Kyrgyz for the murder of ethnic Uzbeks in the course of the June 2010 violence was overturned.” 43. Human Rights Watch’s “World Report 2013: Kyrgyzstan” contains the following findings concerning the situation in Kyrgyzstan in 2012: “Kyrgyzstan has failed to adequately address abuses in the south, in particular against ethnic Uzbeks, undermining long-term efforts to promote stability and reconciliation following inter-ethnic clashes in June 2010 that killed more than 400 people. Despite an uneasy calm in southern Kyrgyzstan, ethnic Uzbeks are still subjected to arbitrary detention, torture, and extortion, without redress. ... Local human rights non-governmental organizations reported that the overall number of reported incidents of arbitrary detention and ill-treatment in police custody continued to decrease in 2012 in the south, although they still document new cases. Groups also reported the growing problem of law enforcement extorting money, in particular from ethnic Uzbeks, threatening criminal prosecution related to the June 2010 events. Victims of extortion rarely report incidents for fear of reprisals. Investigations into the June 2010 violence have stalled. Trials of mostly ethnic Uzbeks connected to the violence continued to take place in violation of international fair trial standards, including the trials of Mahamad Bizurukov and Shamshidin Niyazaliev, each of whom was sentenced to life in prison in October 2012. Lawyers in southern Kyrgyzstan continued to be harassed in 2012 for defending ethnic Uzbek clients who were charged with involvement in the June 2010 violence, perpetuating a hostile and violent environment that undermined defendants’ fair trial rights. On January 20, a group of persons in Jalalabad verbally and physically attacked a lawyer defending the ethnic Uzbek owner of an Uzbek-language television station. No one has been held accountable for such violence against lawyers. ... In hearings related to the June 2010 violence, judges continue to dismiss, ignore, or fail to order investigations into torture allegations. In a rare exception, four police officers were charged with torture after the August 2011 death of Usmonzhon Kholmirzaev, an ethnic Uzbek, who succumbed to internal injuries after he was beaten by police in custody. Repeated delays in proceedings have meant that over a year later, the trial has yet to conclude. In June, after Abdugafur Abdurakhmanov, an ethnic Uzbek serving a life sentence in relation to the June 2010 violence, died in prison, authorities did not open an investigation, alleging he committed suicide.” 44. In its report “Kyrgyzstan: 3 Years After Violence, a Mockery of Justice” issued in June 2013, Human Rights Watch observed, among other things, the following: “Criminal investigations into the June 2010 violence have been marred by widespread arbitrary arrests and ill-treatment, including torture. Unchecked courtroom violence and other egregious violations of defendants’ rights have blocked the accused from presenting a meaningful defense. Human Rights Watch has documented how investigations disproportionately and unjustly targeted ethnic Uzbeks, and how this group has a heightened risk of torture in custody. ... The ethnic clashes erupted in southern Kyrgyzstan on June 10, 2010. The violence, which lasted four days, left more than 400 people dead and nearly 2,000 houses destroyed. Horrific crimes were committed against both ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks. However, while ethnic Uzbeks suffered the majority of casualties and destroyed homes, the majority of those prosecuted for homicide have been ethnic Uzbeks. ... Human Rights Watch’s research from 2010-2013 in southern Kyrgyzstan found that prosecutorial authorities have repeatedly refused to investigate serious and credible allegations of torture. Courts have relied heavily on confessions allegedly extracted under torture to sentence defendants to long prison terms.” 45. The Kyrgyzstan chapter of the 2014 World Report published by Human Rights Watch reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Shortcomings in law enforcement and the judiciary contribute to the persistence of grave abuses in connection to the ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010. Ethnic Uzbeks and other minorities remain especially vulnerable. Courtroom attacks on lawyers and defendants, particularly in cases related to the June 2010 events, occur with impunity. Government officials and civil society representatives formed a national center for the prevention of torture in 2013. In practice, ill-treatment and torture remain pervasive in places of detention, and impunity for torture is the norm. ... Three years on, justice for crimes committed during the ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010 remains elusive. The flawed justice process has produced long prison sentences for mostly ethnic Uzbeks after convictions marred by torture‑tainted confessions and other due process violations. Authorities have not reviewed convictions where defendants alleged torture or other glaring violations of fair trial standards. At least nine ethnic Uzbeks continue to languish in pretrial detention, some for a third year. New convictions in August 2013 of three ethnic Uzbeks in Osh, and pending extradition orders of at least six others in Russia again point to judicial bias against ethnic Uzbeks. The authorities failed to tackle the acute problem of courtroom violence by audiences in trials across Kyrgyzstan, including at the trial of three opposition members of parliament in June, perpetuating an environment that undermines defendants’ fair trial rights. Lawyers were harassed or beaten in court in 2013, including for defending ethnic Uzbek clients in June 2010 cases. Mahamad Bizurukov, an ethnic Uzbek defendant, and his lawyers have been subjected to repeated threats, harassment, and physical attacks for two years, most recently in September 2013, with no accountability for perpetrators. ... Despite the adoption of a national torture prevention mechanism in 2012, and the organization of a related National Center for the Prevention of Torture in 2013, authorities often refuse to investigate allegations of torture and perpetrators go unpunished. On rare occasions when charges are filed against police, investigations, and court proceedings are unduly protracted. A telling example is the criminal case against four police officers following the August 2011 death of an ethnic Uzbek detained on charges related to the June 2010 ethnic violence. Usmonjon Kholmirzaev died several days after his release without charge, apparently from injuries he sustained from beatings in custody. The prosecution has been subjected to repeated delays over the last two years and no one has yet been held accountable for his death. In July 2013, Nurkamil Ismailov was found dead in a temporary detention facility in southern Kyrgyzstan after police detained him for disorderly conduct. Authorities alleged he committed suicide by hanging himself with his t-shirt. The Jalalabad-based human rights group Spravedlivost intervened after which authorities opened a criminal investigation on charges of negligence. In September, Ismailov’s relative and the police settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, with no admission of liability.”

{'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 1961 and lives in Poltava. 5. The applicant is a private entrepreneur in the food supply sector. 6. Since November 2009 the Poltava Regional Police Department has been investigating a number of apparent offences related to forgery of food quality certificates and supply of overpriced foodstuffs for school catering in the city of Poltava. As part of this investigation the police ran checks on the applicant’s business and questioned his associates and family members. 7. On 3 November 2010 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in the context of an investigation of unlawful food supply price increases. 8. On 5 November 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of a financial offence. A record of his arrest was drawn up between 2.45 and 3.30 p.m. on that day. 9. On 8 November 2010 the applicant was taken to the Poltava Oktyabrsky District Court (hereinafter “the District Court”), which remanded him in custody for up to ten days under Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 19 below) without giving any specific reasons for this decision. According to the applicant, the hearing started at 2.55 p.m. and the decision was taken only at 4 p.m., when the maximum period of detention without a court decision (seventy-two hours) permitted under domestic law had expired. The applicant’s lawyer lodged a formal complaint with the judge about unlawful arrest and detention. That complaint was not examined that day. 10. On the same day the police instituted two more sets of proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of other counts of the same crime. 11. On 9 November 2010 the applicant’s lawyer submitted to the court a further complaint about unlawful detention, in addition to the one he had submitted on the date of the hearing (see paragraph 9 above). 12. On 15 November 2010 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody with no maximum duration and on the basis of standard reasoning, referring to gravity of charges, risk of interference with investigation, and personal characteristics without any further explanation. In a separate ruling it rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s complaint (see paragraph 9 above) that from 2.45 p.m. onwards on 8 November 2010 his detention had been unlawful. It noted “Documents [attached] to the application [for a warrant for the applicant’s arrest] refute the allegations regarding the detention of [Mr] Gal O.A. in terms that are not provided by law.” 13. On 23 November 2010 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court. In reply to the lawyer’s complaint about the failure to release the applicant after seventy-two hours of initial detention without a court order, the appellate court noted that on 8 November 2010 the applicant’s detention had been extended for up to ten days. 14. On 29 December 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for up to three months, i.e. until 5 February 2011, on the grounds that the applicant might avoid justice, obstruct the investigation and continue his criminal activities, and that it was necessary to ensure the implementation of procedural decisions. 15. On 18 January 2011 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court. 16. On 3 February 2011 the criminal case against the applicant was referred to the court and was received by that court on 4 February 2011. Twenty days later the prosecution authorities called the case back to correct certain shortcomings. On 25 February 2011 the court returned the case to the prosecutor, who sent the case back to the court on the same day. 17. On 25 March 2011 the Poltava Leninskiy District Court examined the application for release lodged by the applicant’s lawyer and allowed it. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was replaced by an obligation 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'}

6. The applicants were born in 1972, 1949 and 1950 respectively. The first applicant lives in Sydney, Australia and the second and third applicants live in Skopje. 7. On 19 September 2008 the first applicant married Mrs J.S.M. in Skopje. They went to Australia, where on 30 August 2010 Mrs J.S.M. gave birth to their daughter, M.M. Relations between the first applicant and Mrs J.S.M. became strained, and on an unspecified date in 2011 Mrs J.S.M. and M.M. came back to the respondent State. In November 2011 the first applicant took eleven months’ unpaid leave from work in Australia and went to the respondent State to stay with his daughter. 8. On 10 October 2011 Mrs J.S.M. brought a civil claim before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) seeking the dissolution of her marriage with the first applicant. 9. On 13 October 2011, at the request of the first-instance court, the Centre initiated proceedings regarding the parental rights of the first applicant and Mrs J.S.M. 10. On 6 December 2011 the first applicant requested that the Centre establish his specific rights in respect of contact with his daughter. On 3 January 2012 the Centre gave interim custody of the child to Mrs J.S.M. and set out the first applicant’s contact rights regarding M.M. (one hour twice a month in the Centre under supervision by professionals). Mrs J.S.M. was ordered to bring the child to the Centre. The decision further stated that it would be valid until the final conclusion of the civil proceedings regarding the dissolution of the marriage. It further provided that an appeal would not suspend its enforcement. On 8 April 2012 the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (“the Ministry”) quashed this decision and ordered the Centre to reconsider the facts of the case, taking into consideration the interests of the child. Before that date the first applicant saw his daughter on only one occasion (13 January 2012). 11. On 16 May 2012 the first-instance court dissolved the marriage between the first applicant and Mrs J.S.M. It granted custody of the child to the mother, ordered the first applicant to pay child maintenance, and established that he would have continuing contact with his daughter as decided by the Centre. This decision became final on 25 December 2012. 12. In the meantime, on 10 May 2012, the first applicant made a new application to the Centre for a contact order in respect of M.M. On 4 July 2012 the Centre set out that the first applicant could meet with his daughter four times a month at intervals specified in the decision. It no longer specified supervised meetings in the Centre and ordered his ex-wife to comply with the decision. The decision again stated that an appeal would not suspend its enforcement. On 1 October 2012 the Ministry dismissed an appeal by Mrs J.S.M. 13. On 8 October 2012 the first applicant informed the Centre that he was going back to Australia. On 22 October 2012 the Centre set aside its decision of 4 July 2012 and stated, inter alia, that: “[The first applicant], despite the decision (of 4 July 2012), did not see his minor child at any of the scheduled meetings set up in accordance with the decision dated 4 July 2012.” 14. This decision was served on the first applicant on 29 October 2012. 15. In April 2013 the first applicant informed the Centre that he would be staying in the respondent State between 16 May and 2 September 2013. In this connection, on 23 April 2013 he requested that the Centre set out his right to have contact with his daughter during this period, which the Centre did with a decision of 7 June 2013: it specified that the first applicant could meet M.M. twice a month in duration of 8 hours without supervision by the Centre. It also arranged their meetings concerning working days and the child’s birthday. According to the first applicant, he had seen M.M. only once, briefly, in the Centre in the presence of a professional. 16. The first applicant wrote to the Ministry on 3 July 2013, seeking the assistance of police to enforce the Centre’s decisions. 17. On 8 July 2013 the first applicant requested enforcement action by the Centre. He also sought, under section 87(4) and (6) of the Family Act (see paragraph 35 below), temporary custody of the child, given the lengthy period in which he had had no contact with her. By a letter of 11 July 2013 addressed to the Centre the first applicant complained that he had not seen his daughter for two years, and demanded that the Centre take responsibility for enforcing its contact orders. 18. By a letter of 27 August 2013, the Centre informed the first applicant that the Ministry of Justice was responsible, under section 277(2) of the Administrative Proceedings Act (see paragraph 42 below), for enforcing its decisions at the request of the Centre or the party concerned. According to the first applicant, the Ministry of Justice informed him that it had no jurisdiction over enforcement of the Centre’s decisions. The Government did not contest this assertion. 19. On 2 September 2013 the first applicant left for Australia. 20. By a letter of 6 September 2013, the Centre gave him the following information: “[The enforcement of the decision of 7 June 2013] is being totally obstructed by the child’s mother Mrs J.S.M., and none of the scheduled meetings have taken place so far ... The minor child is being completely deprived by the mother of the presence of her father in her life. As a result irreparable damage is being done to her psychological, emotional and social development ... [the decision of 7 June 2013] is being totally obstructed by Mrs J.S.M., who has stated, in the presence of a professional employed by the Centre and a police officer, that she will not comply with the decision ...” 21. On 20 September 2013 the Centre dismissed the first applicant’s request of 8 July 2013 to obtain temporary custody of the child (see paragraph 17 above), stating: “... the team of experts considers that the above request is not in the best interests of the minor child, as it may affect the development of little M.M. ... The expert team took into consideration the age of the minor M.M. and the risk of stress and trauma if she is separated from the environment in which she is being brought up, which could affect her psycho-social and emotional development.” 22. The first applicant appealed against this decision, arguing that the Centre itself had established that the lengthy period with no contact between himself and M.M. was causing “irreparable damage” to her development (see paragraph 20 above) and that his request should therefore be granted. On 10 February 2014 the Ministry dismissed his appeal and upheld the Centre’s decision. The first applicant did not specify whether he had appealed against this decision before the Administrative Court, which has jurisdiction to decide in such matters. 23. With submissions of 9 April 2014 the first applicant informed the Centre that he would arrive in the respondent State in May 2014. He also sought that the Centre specified his contact rights with M.M. 24. On 15 May 2014 the Centre set out the first applicant’s right to contact his daughter. It specified five supervised one-hour meetings with the child in the premises of the Centre. The order concerned May and July 2014. The first applicant appealed this decision, which the Ministry confirmed on 25 July 2014. In the meantime, the Centre dismissed his fresh request for more frequent contacts with M.M. 25. On 1 August 2014 the first applicant requested that the Centre specify his visiting rights regarding his daughter for that month. On 30 September 2014 the Centre dismissed this request since the first applicant had left the respondent State on 4 September 2014. 26. On 4 October 2012 the second and third applicants asked the Centre to set out their contact rights in respect of M.M., which the Centre did with a decision of 9 January 2013. The decision further specified that all the scheduled meetings of the second and third applicants with M.M. which had not been held were to take place (да се надомести секое пропуштено видување). The decision stated that an appeal would not suspend its enforcement. As stated by the second and third applicants, and confirmed by a letter that the Centre sent on 8 May 2013 to the Helsinki Committee office in Skopje, they did not meet with M.M. at any of the meeting times specified by the Centre. According to the Centre, this was because: “... (Mrs J.S.M.) does not respond to any invitations or to telephone calls, does not show any intention of cooperating, and totally obstructs the work of the expert team of the Centre and the enforcement of this decision [9 January 2013].” 27. On 24 April 2013 the Ministry quashed this decision and remitted the case to the Centre for renewed examination. 28. The applicants provided copies of letters submitted to the State Administrative Inspectorate and the Ministry of the Interior in which they complained about the non-compliance of Mrs J.S.M. with the decisions of the Centre and that the latter had failed to enforce them. 29. On 5 September 2013 the second and third applicants asked the Centre to rule on their contact rights in respect of M.M., which the Centre did by a decision of 21 January 2014 (it specified supervised meetings on the Centre’s premises). This decision was served on these applicants on 7 February 2014. The applicants were also instructed to visit the First Family Centre in Skopje, which specialised in issues related to domestic violence. The applicants had no contact with M.M. until 13 February 2014, the date when they first met her on the Centre’s premises. On 27 February 2014 they visited the First Family Centre, which issued a document attesting that it had no jurisdiction in childcare matters and did not consider that there was a need for the second and third applicants to attend sessions regarding domestic violence. 30. According to the applicants, the Centre did not reply to their requests for it to arrange for the meetings with M.M., as specified by the decision of 9 January 2013 (see paragraph 26 above). 31. On 2 April 2014 the Centre delivered a new decision, confirmed on appeal on 24 June 2014, setting out the rights of the second and third applicants to contact M.M. According to the applicants, this decision provided for less contact with M.M. than the decision of 21 January 2014. No information was provided as to whether the decision was being enforced in practice. 32. On 26 August and 21 October 2013 the first applicant and the Centre both lodged criminal complaints against Mrs J.S.M. regarding her refusal to comply with the Centre’s orders concerning the first applicant’s rights of contact with M.M. On 29 October 2013 the public prosecutor submitted an indictment to the first-instance court against her for child abduction. On 12 December 2014 Skopje Court of First Instance found Mrs J.S.M. guilty of child abduction because she had prevented the father from contacting the child as specified by the Social Care Centre. It further sentenced her to three months’ imprisonment suspended for one year after the judgment would become final. No information was submitted whether this judgment became final.

{'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, Mr. H. Armellini, was born in 1961 and lives in Hard. The second applicant, Mr. F. Andres, was born in 1968 and lives in Bregenz. They are both journalists employed by the third applicant, Zeitungs- und Verlags GmbH, a limited liability company with its seat of business in Schwarzach. The applicant company publishes the regional newspaper Neue Voralberger Tageszeitung. 6. At the beginning of 2005 R.H., a German football referee, admitted to having participated in bet rigging (Wettbetrug) by manipulating football matches together with other persons, in particular the brothers F.S., M.S. and A.S.. R.H. told the police that he knew that football matches were also manipulated in Greece and Austria. As regards Austria, he referred to the football club Casino SW Bregenz, which still existed at the time of the events in 2005. 7. On 19 February 2005 an article written by the first and second applicants appeared in the Neue Voralberger Tageszeitung dealing with the German betting scandal’s links to Bregenz. 8. On the front page the headline, printed in a black box in white, read as follows: “Bregenz players bribed with 60,000 euros (EUR)” (“Bregenz‑Spieler mit 60.000 € bestochen”). Below that headline, and still in the black box, were photographs of A.T., D.G. and A.I. and in a yellow box the phrase: “The investigators are at the heels of this trio: They may have manipulated matches for the betting-mafia!” (“Diesem Trio sind die Fahnder auf den Fersen: Es soll für Wett-Mafia Spiele manipuliert haben!”). In the upper left corner, a little box contained the following phrase: “Terrible suspicion against football pros confirmed:” (“Schlimmer Vedacht gegen Fussball-Profis erhärtet:”). 9. The main article on this subject, written by the first and second applicants, appeared on page 29. The headline read as follows: “Sold and betrayed the team for EUR 60,000?” (“Für 60,000 € Team verkauft und verraten?”). The article stated that the three football players had been bribed by the betting-mafia with EUR 60,000 for three matches. Bets for these Casino SW Bregenz matches had been placed in the Stuttgart area (Germany). In one match, which had ended with the result of 2:5 against Casino SW Bregenz, the goal-keeper, A.T., had made serious mistakes, as expected, and another player, A.I. had been replaced because of his poor performance. D.G. had also been playing in that match. The reason for the manipulations was the players’ financial difficulties: they had not received their salary for months. They had all signed a public statement prepared by the management of the club, denying their involvement in the betting scandal. 10. On the following page there was an article under the headline “A 5:2 result shocks a second time!” (“Ein 5:2 schockt ein zweites Mal!”) in which a football match of November 2004 was reviewed again and it was hinted that the poor performance of some of the players was connected to the betting-scandal. 11. On 15 March 2005 A.T., D.G. and A.I. filed a private prosecution (Privatanklage) against the applicants before the Feldkirch Regional Court. They argued that the accusation raised in the article published by the applicant company in its newspaper on 19 February 2005, that they had accepted bribes and manipulated football matches, was particularly serious for a professional football player and his professional reputation. This accusation, which was untrue, constituted defamation and they requested the court to convict the first and second applicants of this offence. They indicated in particular the following passages of the article as defamatory: (i) “Terrible suspicion against football-pros confirmed: Bregenz players bribed with EUR 60,000” (“Schlimmer Vedacht gegen Fussball-Profis erhärtet: Bregenz-Spieler mit 60,000 € bestochen”); (ii) “Sold and betrayed the team for 60,000 EUR?” (“Für 60,000 € Team verkauft und verraten?”); (iii) Bregenz players A.T., D.G. and A.I. were bribed 60,000 EUR for their team to lose three matches. (“Die Bregenz-Spieler A.T., D.G., und A.I. sollen bestochen worden sein. 60,000 €, damit ihr Team drei Spiele verliert.”); (iv) (Regarding the third plaintiff. A.T.) “A.T. had made contact with the Croatian betting-mafia.” (“Den Kontakt zur kroatischen Wettmafia soll A.T. hergestellt haben.”). 12. They also claimed compensation from the applicant company for the harm caused and requested that the judgment be published in its newspaper. 13. On 21 March 2005 the Feldkirch Regional Court ordered the applicant company to publish within five days a short piece (kurze Mitteilung) on the institution of criminal proceedings for defamation in respect of the article at issue. 14. On 8 April 2005 the applicants commented on the charges against them. They argued that they had only voiced a suspicion against the plaintiffs but that in any event their statements were true or, at least, the first and second applicants had had good reason to believe that they were true, which would rule out punishment. 15. Between 26 April 2005 and 13 December 2005 the Regional Court held four hearings in the case in which it heard several witnesses, inter alia, K.E., a freelance journalist working for the third applicant’s newspaper and who had contacted two informants who had wished to remain anonymous, and R.H. (see above). R.H. spoke about his contacts with the S. brothers since May 2004 and stated that one of them, F.S., had contacts in Austria, in particular the football club Casino SW Bregenz. In his opinion two players of that team were in contact with F.S., but he did not give any names or other details. 16. On 13 December 2005 the Regional Court found that the incriminated statements from the article of 19 February 2005 amounted to defamation, convicted the first and second applicants of that offence and sentenced them to a fine of EUR 3,680 and EUR 5,040 respectively, suspended on probation for a probationary period of three years. It ordered the applicant company to pay compensation of EUR 20,000 to each plaintiff and to publish an extract of the present judgment in its newspaper. 17. As regards the impugned article, the Regional Court paid particular attention to its visual appearance which, through its layout and presentation, in particular the printing in white in a large black box, conveyed to the reader the impression that the investigators were about to catch the pictured persons, who had filled their pockets with money by using dirty tricks. That first impression was not mitigated by the small reference to a suspicion in the upper left corner. The same was true for the headline on page 29 which read: “Sold and betrayed the team for EUR 60,000?”. This was a leading question which already contained the answer, and again that first impression could hardly be mitigated by the use of the subjunctive in some phrases of the article itself. The court therefore concluded that, seen as a whole, the article created the impression of being a statement of facts about the scandal and not a genuine expression of a suspicion. 18. The Regional Court therefore examined whether the accused had acted with due journalistic diligence when they considered these statements as true, or if they could prove their veracity. As regards the first element, the Regional Court accepted that there was a public interest in being informed on the question of whether or not players of the Casino SW Bregenz team had actually been involved in a betting scandal, but found that the first and second applicants had not acted with sufficient professional diligence. They had not personally conducted any research to verify the well-foundedness of the rumours but had merely relied on the research of K.E., a freelance collaborator with the newspaper, and had not checked the reliability of the sources - anonymous informants not known to them. Furthermore, they had not given A.T., D.G. and A.I. an opportunity to react even though there had been important new elements going beyond a general suspicion of involvement in the betting scandal to which they had already reacted in the past, namely that they had received a specific amount, EUR 60,000, for manipulating three football matches in the summer of 2005. 19. Turning to the proof of truth put forward by the applicants, the Regional Court observed that D.G. and A.I. had only been accused by K.E.’s two informants, X and Y, of being involved in the betting scandal, and these informants had not given any details nor stated that they themselves had witnessed a transaction. Also R.H., when heard by the court, did not refer to them directly or indirectly. There was clearly no proof of the truth. 20. As regards A.T., the Regional Court observed that he had lied when he stated that he did not know F.S., that F.S. had repeatedly visited Bregenz and that there had been football matches in which that player had given a very poor performance. Also the informants X and Y had stated that A.T. was involved in the betting scandal. These were arguments speaking in favour of his involvement in the betting scandal, but there were also arguments speaking against. It was understandable that A.T. had not admitted to knowing F.S. immediately, when all kinds of suspicions were discussed in connection with the betting scandal, as F.S. was one of the principal persons involved in that scandal. Furthermore, there was only evidence that F.S. had visited Bregenz on various occasions between autumn 2003 and May 2004, whereas the football match which, in the eyes of the authors of the article, was particularly suspicious had taken place in November 2004. According to the information given by X and Y, F.S. had paid the three accused football players EUR 60,000 in summer 2004 for three matches which had not yet taken place. That did not coincide with his habits as described in detail by R.H. Lastly, the amount claimed by X and Y, namely EUR 60,000, was not plausible, given that Casino SW Bregenz had been at the very end of the national football league table in Austria throughout the season of 2004/2005 and the quota for bets on that team losing a match would have been so small that it would not have justified the investment of a considerable sum. 21. Weighing all these elements, the Regional Court concluded that the applicants had not succeeded in proving the truth of the statements made in the impugned article. As regards the compensation under Section 6 of the Media Act, the Regional Court found that the particular seriousness of the accusations raised, and the adverse effect they could have on the career of a professional footballer, justified the sum of compensation granted. 22. On 26 January 2006 the applicants appealed against this judgment. They argued that the impugned article did not contain a statement of fact but merely a suspicion against A.T., D.G. and A.I. Moreover, the first and second applicants had fully complied with journalistic ethics. As K.E. and the applicants had acted as a team, there was no need to check further the information received and at that stage of the investigations there had also been no need to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to react to the information to be published. 23. On 6 April 2006 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the first and second applicants, but partially granted the appeal of the applicant company and reduced the amount of compensation to EUR 12,000 for each plaintiff. It found that the Regional Court had carefully weighed the arguments and had arrived at a correct and well-reasoned judgment. It agreed with the Regional Court that the first and second applicants had not reported on a mere suspicion but had presented their allegations as facts which they had failed to prove.

{'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 and 1973 respectively and live in Pirita. 6. The present case concerns the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicants’ 18-year-old son, Vadim Pisari, by a Russian soldier, V.K., at a peacekeeping security checkpoint located on the territory of Moldova following the Transdniestrian armed conflict. 7. The facts concerning the historical background of the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-92 and the subsequent events, are set out in Ilaşcu, Ivanţoc, Leşco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-183, ECHR 2004‑VII), and in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012). 8. Vadim Pisari lived in Pirita, a village located on the left bank of the Dniester River but controlled by the Moldovan Constitutional Authorities. Early in the morning of 1 January 2012, after an all-night New Year’s Eve party with his friends at which alcoholic drinks were consumed, Vadim Pisari, accompanied by a friend “passenger”, took a car belonging to another friend of theirs for a joy ride. Since the car needed urgent refuelling, they decided to drive to a petrol station located on the right bank of the Dniester River in the town of Vadul lui Vodă. They were stopped at the exit from their village by a police patrol and Vadim Pisari was asked to open the boot of his car. The two young people were then allowed to continue on their way. In order to reach the petrol station they needed to cross a bridge over the Dniester River located approximately one kilometre from their village. Peacekeeping security checkpoints were located at both ends of the bridge (“the left checkpoint” and “the right checkpoint”). 9. The checkpoints were controlled by peacekeeping military forces belonging to the Russian Federation, the Republic of Moldova and the self‑proclaimed Republic of Transdniestria. At the time of the events, each checkpoint was manned by eight soldiers of whom four were Russians, two Moldovans and two Transdniestrians. The command of the left checkpoint was ensured by a Russian sergeant, V.K., who was the only one armed with a loaded machine gun at the time of the events. The command of the right checkpoint was also ensured by a Russian sergeant. At each checkpoint concrete blocks and metal barriers were placed on the road in such a way that cars would be forced to slow down in order to pass through them. Each checkpoint had barracks in which the soldiers took turns to rest, and armoured personnel carriers. The distance between the right and the left checkpoints was approximately 600 metres. 10. Vadim Pisari’s car reached the left checkpoint at approximately 7.10 a.m. Three soldiers, including V.K., were guarding the road. The remaining soldiers were inside the barracks. When passing through the checkpoint, Vadim Pisari not only failed to stop but hit and ran over the “stop” sign and a barrier on which it was located and which was blocking half of the road, with the front right wing of his car. His passenger explained later that the windshield had been partly covered with ice, as the car’s heating system had not been functioning and the driver’s visibility had been poor. V.K. ordered the driver to stop the car, but Vadim Pisari did not obey and continued on his way. V.K. immediately contacted the right checkpoint and asked the Russian sergeant in command to stop the approaching car. However, the car did not stop at the other checkpoint either. According to a soldier from that checkpoint, a special device consisting of several metal bars resembling a World War II Czech “hedgehog” was deployed in the middle of the road in order to stop the car, but the driver simply avoided it and continued on his way. Vadim Pisari’s passenger, however, stated that nobody had attempted to stop the car at the right checkpoint. 11. Twenty minutes later, at approximately 7.30 a.m., after having refuelled the car, Vadim Pisari and his passenger drove back over the bridge. According to the passenger, initially they had hesitated to go back because of the incident with the stop sign at the left checkpoint. However, they decided to go after Vadim Pisari had assured the passenger that he would solve the problem and that everything would be alright. They passed unhindered through the right checkpoint. A soldier from that checkpoint confirmed later in his statements to the Moldovan police that nobody had attempted to stop the car when it had passed, but that they had immediately informed the left checkpoint about the approach of the car. 12. In his affidavit to the Moldovan police given on the same day, V.K. submitted that for the purpose of stopping the car, two hedgehogs had been deployed at the entry and exit of the checkpoint. Two other soldiers from the left checkpoint (one Moldovan and one Transdniestrian) submitted on the same day to the Moldovan police that only one hedgehog had been placed on the road. In his statements given to a Russian investigator on 6 January 2012, V.K. submitted that in addition to the two hedgehogs, two spike strips had also been deployed at the entry and exit of the left checkpoint, although they had not been long enough to cover the entire width of the road. Identical statements were made to a Russian investigator by the Transdniestrian soldier mentioned above and by another Russian soldier from the left checkpoint. 13. When Vadim Pisari approached the left checkpoint in the car, V.K. ordered him to stop. However, he accelerated and avoided the obstacle(s). According to V.K., the car drove towards him and he had to jump away in order to avoid being hit by it. V.K. made the same statement to the Russian investigators on 6 January 2012 but not in his affidavit to the Moldovan police given immediately after the incident. Similarly, the affidavits of the other two soldiers who had witnessed the incident, given immediately after the incident to the Moldovan police, did not mention that V.K. had risked being hit by the car. V.K. then shouted to the car’s driver to stop or he would shoot, and fired one shot in the air. The driver ignored his order and did not stop, but accelerated, so V.K. fired three single shots in the direction of the car, aiming at its tyres. According to V.K., he had no intention of shooting the driver, but was merely trying to stop the car by shooting at its tyres. According to the applicants and to the Moldovan Government, another soldier from the left checkpoint who was close to the car was almost hit by one of V.K.’s bullets, which pierced his coat. Only one bullet appears to have hit the car, which continued for some thirty metres before stopping. The driver’s door opened and Vadim Pisari fell to the ground on his back with his legs remaining inside the car. The passenger got out of the car and was ordered to lie on the ground. V.K. approached Vadim Pisari and saw that he was wounded in the back. He and his colleagues placed a bandage on the wound and called an ambulance, which arrived ten minutes later and took the victim to a hospital in Chisinau. Vadim Pisari died from his wound several hours later. 14. Shortly after the incident, the Moldovan police arrived and took written affidavits from the soldiers present at the left checkpoint and from one of the soldiers from the right checkpoint. They attempted to take the machine gun with which the victim had been shot, but the Russian military command refused to give it to them. 15. Shortly thereafter the Moldovan authorities instituted a criminal investigation into the circumstances of Vadim Pisari’s killing. The Russian soldier who had shot the victim was immediately transferred by his military superiors to a military unit in Bryansk, the Russian Federation. The Russian Ministry of External Affairs announced that the Russian authorities would conduct a parallel investigation into the circumstances of the case. 16. On 2 January 2012 the military commanders of the joint peacekeeping forces from the Russian Federation, the Republic of Moldova and the so-called Republic of Transdniestria created a commission to investigate the incident of 1 January 2012. The commission was headed by a Russian colonel and comprised three other members from Moldova, the so-called Republic of Transdniestria and Ukraine. An undated report of the commission was presented to the Court by the Russian Government. However, as submitted by the Moldovan Government, it was not signed by the Moldovan member of the commission and therefore had no legal effect. According to the report, Vadim Pisari was responsible for a serious breach of the rules of conduct at checkpoints and for threatening the lives of the soldiers present and of the people in the adjacent localities. At the same time, the report cited as one of the reasons for the incident the lack of appropriate means for stopping vehicles at the checkpoint. As to the responsibility of V.K., the authors of the report stated that they preferred to abstain from reaching any conclusion; however, they provisionally found his actions consistent with the rules concerning the use of firearms. 17. On 14 January 2012 a senior Russian military officer of the western region, E.S. Kleimenov (cтарший офицер отдела СВ и БВС штаба западного ВО, капитан второго ранга), issued a report concerning the incident of 1 January 2012. The report was provided to the Court by the Russian Government. It stated, inter alia, that V.K. had acted in accordance with the rules applicable in the circumstances when attempting to stop Vadim Pisari, who had represented a threat to the soldiers at the checkpoint. As to the reasons for the incident, the report cited a lack of sufficient equipment at the checkpoint for stopping cars without recourse to lethal force and the fact that the local population had been ill-informed about the rules of conduct at peacekeeping checkpoints. 18. On 10 January 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Moldova recognised the applicants’ victim status within the criminal proceedings conducted by it. On 22 May 2012, it informed the applicants that it had issued an international search warrant for the Russian soldier suspected of having shot Vadim Pisari. 19. In the meantime, the Moldovan authorities questioned all the Moldovan soldiers who had been manning the left and right checkpoints at the time of the incident. They also conducted a forensic examination of the scene of the incident, the car driven by the victim, the victim’s body and the bullet extracted from it. According to a forensic report dated 3 January 2012, the concentration of alcohol in Vadim Pisari’s blood had been 0.7%, corresponding to light intoxication. Another medical report dated 4 January 2012 established that the concentration of alcohol in the victim’s body had been 1.13%. 20. On 9 February 2012 the applicants wrote to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation inquiring about the progress of the investigation conducted by the Russian authorities. 21. In a letter dated 30 March 2012 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the western region of the Russian Federation (Прокуратура Западного Военного Округа) informed the applicants, inter alia, that it had initiated an investigation in respect of the offence provided for by Article 109/1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely manslaughter. In another letter, the applicants’ lawyer was informed that the suspect would not be extradited to Moldova because Russia could not extradite its own citizens. 22. The materials of the case file show that the Russian authorities questioned all the Russian soldiers present at both the right and left checkpoints at the time of the incident, as well as two Transdniestrian soldiers. All those questioned made statements similar to those made by V.K. before the Russian investigators (see paragraph 12 above). They stated that they had never experienced a similar incident at a checkpoint. In addition, in the course of the investigation the scene of the incident was examined, an investigative experiment with V.K. was conducted, a ballistic examination was carried out and V.K. was subjected to a psychiatric examination. 23. On 24 December 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Moldova informed the applicants that they had learnt from the Russian authorities that on 17 May 2012 the soldier suspected of having shot Vadim Pisari had been cleared of the accusations against him and that the proceedings had been terminated on the ground that the evidence had not disclosed the elements of an offence. The Russian authorities also emphasised that, being a Russian citizen, the suspect could not be prosecuted by the authorities of Moldova. 24. After learning that the Russian authorities had discontinued the criminal proceedings in respect of V.K., the applicants wrote to the Russian Prosecutor’s Office and requested a copy of the decision adopted. They also requested to be recognised as victims in the case and asked how they could challenge the decision concerning the termination of the proceedings. 25. In March 2013 the applicants received a reply from the Russian authorities informing them that the proceedings had indeed been discontinued on 17 May 2012; however, a copy of that decision could not be sent to the victim’s family because they had not been a party to the proceedings and had no procedural rights therein. 26. On 8 May 2013 the applicants wrote to the prosecutor at the next level in the Russian Federation requesting that the decision of 17 May 2012 be quashed and that the reopened proceedings be conducted with their involvement. 27. On 17 September 2013 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the western region of the Russian Federation wrote to the applicants informing them that their request had been dismissed because they did not have standing to appeal against the decision of 17 May 2012. 28. On 22 August 2013 the Moldovan Prosecutor’s Office decided to discontinue the investigation into the circumstances of the case in view of the fact that all the investigative measures had been completed and that the suspect had absconded from the Moldovan authorities. 29. Neither the applicants nor the Moldovan authorities received a copy of the Russian authorities’ decision terminating the criminal proceedings in respect of V.K.

{'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 1948 and lives in Essex. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, can be summarised as follows. 5. The applicant was arrested in the Netherlands on 31 January 1999. On 3 February 1999, following transfer to the United Kingdom, he was charged with the attempted importation of 163 kilograms (compressed weight) of cocaine with a potential street value of GBP 11 million. 6. Prior to trial, in order to seize and preserve the applicant’s assets for future confiscation in the event of a conviction, the prosecution applied for and obtained a restraint order and the appointment of a receiver under section 26 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (“the 1994 Act”). The receiver sought to sell the applicant’s horses immediately and this was successfully challenged by the applicant. In its judgment dated 23 July 1999 the Court of Appeal confirmed that the purpose of the 1994 Act was to preserve the value of assets for the purpose of future confiscation proceedings. 7. Also prior to trial, the applicant sought to challenge the admissibility of telephone interception evidence obtained in the Netherlands. He ultimately pursued an appeal to the House of Lords, which delivered its judgment against the applicant on 24 March 2000. 8. The trial subsequently commenced in the Crown Court in June 2000. However, after the jury had already retired to consider their verdict a prejudicial document was discovered within the jury bundle. The fault for this lay with the prosecution, a matter admitted at the time. Consequently, on 31 August 2000 the jury were discharged. 9. A retrial commenced on 6 April 2001. At the start of the retrial the applicant’s counsel pursued an unsuccessful application to stay the proceedings on grounds of hardship suffered as a result of the prosecution’s negligence in causing the first trial to be abandoned. 10. On 5 June 2001 the applicant was found guilty of the offences charged. On 6 June 2001 he was sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment. He lodged an appeal against sentence, which was unsuccessful. In 2004 he lodged an out-of-time appeal against conviction. He was released from prison in February 2006 and, on 17 November 2006, he abandoned his appeal (see further paragraph 29 below). 11. The 1994 Act provides for the making of a confiscation order in the event of a conviction for drug trafficking offences. Accordingly, prior to the sentencing hearing, the prosecution served notice under section 2 of the Act of its intention to seek a confiscation order and a statement under section 11 of the Act containing the prosecution’s assessment of whether the applicant had benefited from drug trafficking and the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking. 12. At the sentencing hearing on 6 June 2001, the judge ordered the defence to serve a written response to the prosecution’s statement within six weeks. The defence failed to serve its response within the six-week period. At the prosecution’s request, a further procedural hearing took place on 9 October 2001. At this hearing, the judge was informed that the delay in serving the defence response had been caused by the applicant moving prisons and wishing to instruct new solicitors. The prosecution drew the judge’s attention to section 3 of the 1994 Act, which provided a six-month deadline in respect of the confiscation proceedings. Prosecution counsel indicated that an extension of the deadline might be required. Defence counsel confirmed that the applicant wished to apply for a transfer to new solicitors and agreed that an extension would probably be required as it was unlikely that a fresh legal team would be ready by 6 December 2001 when the current deadline was due to expire. The judge granted a short adjournment of 28 days to resolve the matter of transferring representation. 13. On 6 November 2001 the court granted a defence application for the transfer of legal aid. The new defence representative sought an adjournment of three weeks to allow new counsel to receive the papers and take instructions from the applicant. The prosecution did not oppose the application but reminded the judge that under section 3 of the 1994 Act, the judge needed to find “exceptional circumstances” before the timetable could be extended beyond the six-month deadline. Defence counsel was unable to address the judge on the point of “exceptional circumstances” owing to his lack of familiarity with the case. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 4 December 2001 to review progress. 14. On 4 December 2001 defence counsel indicated to the judge that, owing to the complexities of the case, he would not have a defence response prepared before Easter 2002. He also indicated that a contested hearing, which the parties now appeared to consider necessary, would require a two-week time estimate. The judge was again referred to section 3 of the 1994 Act and it was decided with the agreement of all parties to postpone the confiscation timetable to the end of May 2002 pursuant to the court’s powers under that section. The judge suggested a provisional date of 20 May 2002 for the substantive confiscation hearing. 15. At a hearing on 25 January 2002, the defence gave notice that it wished to challenge the validity of the postponement of the confiscation hearing on the basis that the Crown Court had no jurisdiction because procedural requirements had not been properly followed by the judge at the hearing on 4 December 2001. The judge set a timetable for the service of skeleton arguments on the jurisdiction point and fixed 14 March 2002 for legal argument on the matter. 16. In early March, as a result of informal discussions between junior counsel for both sides regarding a case pending before the Court of Appeal on the jurisdiction point, the 14 March 2002 date was vacated. In the event, the pending appeal case was subsequently conceded by the prosecution so no oral argument took place in that case. A review hearing in the applicant’s case was scheduled for 22 March 2002. 17. Prior to the hearing on 22 March 2002 it became apparent that the parties had misunderstood each other in agreeing to vacate the 14 March 2002 date. Counsel for the defence had understood that if the appeal in the other case was decided in the appellant’s favour, the prosecution in the applicant’s case would terminate the confiscation proceedings against him. Counsel for the prosecution denied that such an undertaking was ever made. Counsel for the defence indicated his intention to argue abuse of process on the basis that an undertaking had been given and was then reneged upon. 18. On 22 March 2002, the prosecution indicated its intention to proceed with the confiscation hearing on 20 May 2002, as planned. The defence requested that legal argument on jurisdiction and abuse of process be postponed to suit the diary of leading counsel. The judge noted that it was “a supreme irony frankly ... that this case was adjourned solely for Mr Piper’s benefit and he now has the temerity to say that there is no jurisdiction to try him.” He also commented that since the prosecution had produced its statement under section 11 of the 1994 Act before the sentencing hearing on 6 June 2001, Mr Piper had done absolutely nothing. The judge indicated his preference for retention of the May date for the substantive hearing with any legal argument to take place beforehand, suggesting that alternative leading counsel could be found. Defence counsel proposed instead that the May date be set down for legal argument and after that, unless the confiscation proceedings had fallen away, the defence would serve their response by the end of May. The judge reluctantly put back the substantive confiscation proceedings until 13 June 2002, noting that he was “very loath to have further slippage than is absolutely necessary”. 19. On 22, 23 and 27 May 2002 two defence applications submitted by newly instructed leading counsel were heard. The first was to stay the confiscation proceedings on grounds of abuse of process; the second was for an order declaring that there was no jurisdiction to continue the confiscation proceedings on account of the judge having failed to observe the proper procedural requirements when he postponed the confiscation hearing on 4 December 2001. 20. In his ruling of 27 May 2002 the judge found, in relation to the jurisdiction point that the original adjournment was to afford the defence more time, that no defence response had been forthcoming to the prosecution statement and that further delay had been caused by the applicant wishing to instruct new solicitors. He indicated that he had listed the case on 4 December 2001, two days before the six-month time-limit expired, and that on that date he had postponed the listing to 31 May 2002 in compliance with section 3 of the 1994 Act. He further found that no prejudice had been caused to the applicant as a result of the postponement. Accordingly, he concluded that the court had jurisdiction to deal with the confiscation proceedings. On the issue of abuse of process, the judge ruled that there had been a misunderstanding between counsel as to whether any undertaking had been given and that no abuse therefore arose. Following the ruling, the confiscation proceedings were adjourned and fixed for September 2002 to allow the defence to prepare their case. 21. Further argument then took place in relation to the jurisdiction point following a Court of Appeal judgment on 27 June 2002 in which a confiscation order was quashed following a finding that a Crown Court judge had not complied with the requirements of section 3 of the 1994 Act. The applicant asked the judge to reconsider his ruling of 27 May 2002. The judge considered the applicant’s case to be distinguishable on the facts. However, on the request of the defence and following advice from both parties that an interlocutory appeal could be completed quickly and that the September 2002 confiscation hearing would not need to be vacated, he certified the point as fit for appeal to the Court of Appeal. 22. The applicant duly lodged an appeal on the jurisdiction point. For unknown reasons, matters proceeded more slowly than the parties had expected and the September confiscation hearing did not go ahead. A further judgment in a similar appeal was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 16 December 2002 (R v Knights (Richard Michael) and others [2002] EWCA Crim 2954). An appeal against that judgment was lodged with the House of Lords. 23. The applicant’s case was adjourned further in December 2002 and February 2003 on application by him under section 3 of the 1994 Act, the “exceptional circumstances” being the pending House of Lords appeals. The parties were requested to keep the court updated. The applicant was subsequently informed by letter from the Court of Appeal dated 24 March 2003 that a question had been certified for the House of Lords in the case of Knights and others and that all similar appeals, including his own, would be held in abeyance until that appeal had been decided by the House of Lords. 24. As a result of this, and disclosure issues in relation to the receiver, the matter was further postponed in September 2003 until 9 January 2004 by which time the House of Lords had not issued a judgment in Knights and others. The judge allowed a one-week adjournment to obtain an update from the judicial office of the House of Lords. He was reminded by the applicant that he would again need to formally postpone the confiscation hearing. The judge proposed a further six-month postponement, on the proviso that he be provided with more up to date information in a week’s time and that if the proceedings could be listed and dealt with before the six-month period had expired, the parties should arrange this. Both counsel agreed. 25. Further hearings took place in June and July 2004. However, the House of Lords had still not issued a judgment. Further postponements were ordered. 26. On 27 September 2004 the judge was informed that the applicant had lodged an out-of-time appeal with the Court of Appeal against his conviction. Accordingly, there was little point in fixing a date for a substantive hearing in the confiscation proceedings. The applicant suggested a postponement to June of 2005. The judge agreed to the postponement on condition that the parties kept him informed of any progress in the meantime. 27. On 21 July 2005 the House of Lords handed down their judgments in two jurisdiction appeals (R v Knights and others [2005] UKHL 50; and R v Soneji and another [2005] UKHL 49). It upheld the confiscation orders, stating that any prejudice caused to the defendants by delay was outweighed by the public interest in not allowing convicted offenders to escape confiscation for bona fide errors in the judicial process. 28. On 28 July 2005 a procedural hearing was held in the Crown Court in the applicant’s case. The applicant’s counsel acknowledged that the House of Lords judgment effectively ruled out the prospect of a successful appeal on jurisdiction. The applicant requested a further adjournment to allow the parties to discuss matters further and agree amongst themselves a convenient date in September for the next hearing. The judge agreed to an adjournment. It is unclear whether a hearing took place in September or whether further adjournments were agreed in light of the applicant’s pending appeal against conviction. 29. In the meantime, from October to December 2005, separate hearings were held in the Court of Appeal relating to the applicant’s appeal against conviction. On 1 February 2006, the applicant was released from prison, having served half of his sentence. On 17 November 2006, apparently following adverse outcomes on various issues relating to his appeal, the applicant abandoned his appeal against conviction. 30. On 8 December 2006 at a review hearing in the confiscation proceedings, the applicant informed the court that he had a large number of witnesses and a great deal of work was yet to be done. The applicant’s counsel gave notice of a potential abuse argument arising from the deaths of two of his witnesses. The judge fixed a timetable for further proceedings, including the lodging of an amended “section 11 statement” by the prosecution and reply by the applicant. The matter was listed for a hearing in late January 2007. The prosecution served the amended statement in January 2007. At the hearing on 25 January 2007 it was agreed to seek suitable dates in April 2007. 31. At a directions hearing on 16 April 2007 the applicant’s counsel again raised issues relating to the volume of work and requested until the end of May to respond to the prosecution’s “section 11 statement”. The judge extended the deadline to 1 June 2007 and ordered that the prosecution serve any further response within four weeks. A procedural hearing was agreed for 6 July 2007. The judge further extended the deadline for the confiscation hearing on the grounds of “exceptional circumstances”, stating that this was “a wholly exceptional case”. 32. At the procedural hearing on 6 July 2007 the applicant proposed November 2007 for the substantive confiscation hearing and assured the judge that the hearing would not last longer than a week. The judge was scheduled to start a complex trial on 12 November 2007 to last until Christmas. He therefore listed the applicant’s case for 6 November 2007. On 1 November 2007 the parties appeared before the judge. The applicant’s counsel informed the judge that, contrary to previous advice to the court, one week would be insufficient for the substantive hearing as he now wished to call more witnesses than had originally been indicated. The judge’s other commitments precluded a rescheduled hearing taking place before Christmas and counsel could not agree on dates after Christmas. The judge decided to keep the hearing fixed for 6 November 2007 to clarify the situation as to dates. The matter was further adjourned at hearings that took place in November 2007 and December 2007. The substantive hearing was listed for 20 July 2008, with a time estimate of two weeks, but in fact lasted four days from 22 to 24 July 2008. 33. The judge delivered his ruling on the confiscation on 19 December 2008. He identified the total amount of the applicant’s benefit from criminal conduct as GBP 1,840,563. He found the principal realisable asset to be a farm, which was valued at GBP 690,000. A confiscation order was made, with a three-year term of imprisonment to be served consecutive to the main sentence in default of payment. In his judgment, the judge also addressed the question of delay, noting that the delay incurred resulted partly from the applicant’s desire to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, partly from his appeal to the Court of Appeal and partly from his decision to change his legal representatives. 34. On 11 February 2009 the applicant requested the judge to vary the confiscation order and reopen his findings on the delay issue on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Bullen and Soneji v. the United Kingdom, no. 3383/06, 8 January 2009. The judge declined, noting that it was now for the applicant to seek other remedies. 35. The applicant applied, out of time,[1] to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the confiscation order. He argued, first, that the judge had erred in including the current value of the farm within the benefit figure of the proceeds of drug trafficking; and, secondly, that the delay in the disposal of the confiscation proceedings had breached his right to a fair trial and to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 36. An oral hearing took place before the full court to decide upon both leave to appeal and the merits on 17 March 2010. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal itself, upholding the confiscation order and finding no violation of Article 6 § 1. As regards the delay complaint, the court considered the whole period from the applicant’s arrest in January 1999 to the making of the confiscation order in December 2008. It indicated that the delay: “3. ... raises a prima facie case of a significant breach of Article 6. Unless there is a satisfactory explanation for it, it is a chronology which is way, way below the standards which are expected and achieved in the courts of this country. ... 8. ... We start with the proposition that the passage of such a length of time as we have described calls for the most careful investigation and detailed justification. It is simply on the face of it well beyond acceptable.” 37. The court found that the period from the applicant’s arrest in January 1999 to the conclusion of his first trial on 31 August 2000 was wholly unexceptional and reasonable. As to the period between the discharge of the jury in the first trial to the conclusion of the second trial in June 2001, a period of ten months, the court accepted that the abandonment of the first trial was the fault of the prosecution, noting: “11. ... The trial had to start all over again. It was not concluded by conviction at the end of the second trial until 5th June 2001. There is thus a period of 10 months from 31st August 2000 until 5th June 2001 which was an unnecessary delay attributable to the error, although in good faith, made on behalf of the prosecution by some junior clerk. That period is therefore potentially available to be considered as the responsibility of the State.” 38. The court then examined the delay from the end of the second trial in June 2001 until July 2005, when the House of Lords’ judgment in the jurisdiction appeals was handed down. It observed that at the outset of this period, the confiscation proceedings were moving in good time. The court considered that there would have been a hearing of the confiscation question in about the spring or early summer of 2002, if that probable timetable had not been overtaken by the applicant’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, of which the court noted;. “14. ... He was entitled to do so. The issue was raised before the trial judge in the early part of 2002 ... The controversy as to the correct construction of the confiscation legislation was not resolved until the decision of the House of Lords in R v Bullen and Soneji ... In fact the question raised and decided went further than simply the confiscation legislation. It bore on a broader question of when technical failure to abide exactly by prescribed procedure has the effect of nullifying the subsequent actions of courts which is, of course, a very large general question.” The Court of Appeal considered that it was in the applicant’s interests to await the eventual authoritative ruling of the House of Lords. It therefore concluded that the delay that arose in this respect could not be criticised. 39. In the period from July 2005 until the applicant abandoned his appeal against conviction in November 2006, the court considered that the delay was the result of the appeal lodged “long out of time”, noting: “17. ... Whilst an appeal against conviction was outstanding there could not of course sensibly be a confiscation hearing because if the defendant’s conviction disappeared so would any prospect of confiscation.” The court observed that the applicant had engaged a third counsel for the appeal, and pursued it on grounds that had never been supported by those who had conducted his trial. It further noted that the various grounds advanced by the applicant fell away one by one over that period, but one of them remained and was not finally laid to rest until November 2006. The court concluded: “19. ... The simple fact is that the appeal on this ground, as on the others, had always been without any proper basis or merit. It is this additional period to which we referred prospectively earlier on as an example of the defendant taking the course that he is quite entitled to do – leaving no legal stone unturned – but adding to the passage of time as a result. We are satisfied that nothing in that period can be called unreasonable delay attributable to the act or omission of the State.” 40. As regards the period between November 2006 and December 2008, when the confiscation order was eventually made, the Court of Appeal noted that the parties had returned promptly to the Crown Court for the resumption of the confiscation issue within a fortnight of the abandonment of the appeal against conviction. It was apparent at the hearing of 8 December 2006 that the prosecution was pressing for a short timetable. The applicant’s representatives, on the other hand, wanted a longer timetable and were seeking additional time on the grounds that they had an enormous volume of work and would be calling a large number of witnesses, and might even be mounting an abuse argument on the grounds that some potential witnesses had died. Hearings were adjourned owing to the applicant’s applications. Although the Court of Appeal did not blame the applicant for his conduct, the court made it clear that any additional passage of time as a result of that conduct was not attributable to any act of the State. It observed in particular that: “20. ... At one such hearing, in January 2007, the defendant through his lawyers indicated that there would be no less than 49 witnesses necessary to be examined at the confiscation hearing ... [that] was eventually set down for November, taking into account the potentially large number of witnesses and time that would be needed. At that stage the estimate, which according to English practice will have been an estimate contributed to by both parties, was five days. That is a very long time for a confiscation hearing but if the time has to be found it has to be found. However, that date had to be broken on the application of the defendant because they assured the judge that they had so many witnesses to call that in fact 14 days would be needed, that is three court weeks, to hear the confiscation question. In the end, the defendant called five (not 49) witnesses and one of those was himself.” 41. The court commented on the time taken by the Crown Court judge to deliver his ruling (some four and a half months after the conclusion of the confiscation hearing) as follows: “22. ... We do not doubt that that will be attributable to the demands made on the judges at the Central Criminal Court, but it is too long and that period, or at least part of it, is no doubt the responsibility of the State. Judgments of this kind ought to be delivered within, at the very least, two or three months.” 42. Looking at the passage of time as a whole, the court concluded that there had not been in the applicant’s case unreasonable delay attributable to the acts of the State. The court also considered the impact of the passage of time upon the applicant, and acknowledged that he and his wife lived throughout this time with the uncertainty of whether they would lose his family home. However, given that his assets remained the same throughout the whole period and that he continued to enjoy his home which might have otherwise been taken from him earlier, the court had very little doubt about where the balance of advantage lay. It concluded: “25. The reality of this case is that this was a defendant of resourceful approach who deployed every possible legal stratagem to delay the confiscation process. He cannot now be heard to say that as a result of his having succeeded in delaying it, it has become unfair for the confiscation order to proceed. If there had been unreasonable delay attributable to the State, in the absence of any possible damage to the defendant beyond the very limited uncertainty that we have mentioned we are quite satisfied that this could not possibly have been a case in which the appropriate remedy would have been a stay of the confiscation process for abuse of process. There would simply have been nothing remotely unfair about the defendant eventually having to disgorge the confiscation which was the consequence of his offending. The appropriate remedy would, hypothetically, as it seems to us, have been a declaration. But that does not in the end arise. It follows that the substantive ground ... in relation to Article 6 fails.” 43. Since the lodging of his application to this Court, a further judgment has been handed down by the High Court on 7 December 2011, substantially reducing the amount of assets payable under the confiscation order (CPS v Piper [2011] EWHC 3570 (Admin)).

{'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 Piatra Neamţ. 6. On 27 November 2001 the applicant, an administrator in a small commercial company, started serving a seventeen-year prison sentence for fraud and tax evasion. 7. From 10 August 2010 to 22 April 2014, when he was conditionally released, the applicant was detained in Bacău, Iaşi, Galaţi, Brăila, and Vaslui Prisons. 8. According to the applicant, the detention conditions in Bacău, Iaşi, Galaţi, Brăila, and Vaslui Prisons amounted to physical and psychological torture. His detailed description of the conditions, common to all those prisons, is set out below: – overcrowding: in Bacău Prison, he was briefly held from 10 to 13 August 2010 in the old detention block in a cell measuring 12 sq. m with fifteen other prisoners; in Iaşi Prison, in a cell measuring 24 sq. m with twenty-seven other prisoners; in Galaţi Prison, in a cell measuring 15.2 sq. m with thirteen other prisoners; and in Brăila Prison, in a cell measuring 20 sq. m with fifteen other prisoners; – inadequate heating in the winter and inadequate insulation of the windows. In the prisons of Iaşi and Galaţi there were no glass panes in the toilet window. In addition, in Galaţi Prison the toilet had no door. The applicant alleged that he contracted rheumatic fever and skin lesions on his hands owing to the cold he had endured; – defective sanitary installations/no proper bathrooms: the cells were usually provided with an area where two sinks, a shower and a toilet were installed. In Iaşi and Brăila Prisons there was no shower, he had to wash in the sink or carry water and wash himself in the toilet if he wanted privacy. Hot water was provided twice a week for a period of only two hours, in which there was not always time for everyone to wash; – presence of bed bugs and other parasites: in Bacău and Iaşi Prisons he could not sleep at night because of bed bugs falling on him from the upper bed. No disinfection was ever carried out by the prison authorities and in Bacău and Iaşi Prisons the detainees were not even allowed to bring in their own disinfectants from outside; – the prisons had no place specially designed for eating. He was forced to eat in the cells, most of which did not have the requisite furniture – there were no chairs or tables, and the distance between the bunk beds was such that he could not sit up straight on his bed; – insufficient daylight in the cells and electricity provided only for a few hours during the day and evening, so that he was forced to read and write in the dark most of the time; – dirty and worn-out mattresses and sheets; – very poor quality food; – in Vaslui Prison there was so much dampness that there was always water on the floors. 9. In addition, the applicant alleged that the inhuman conditions of his detention had been aggravated by his constant and unnecessary transfers between prisons and between various cells in the same prison. He also alleged that on numerous occasions he had had to share his cell with mentally ill detainees who sometimes acted strangely, terrifying him or making his life unbearable. 10. The Government submitted that all of the prisons mentioned by the applicant had adequate natural and electric lighting and ventilation, and that the windows had never been covered by spare beds. All of the prisons had a central heating system providing adequate heating in the winter. All of the cells in which the applicant had been held had had the requisite furniture. 11. The specific details submitted by the Government with respect to the prisons in question are set out below. (a) Bacău Prison 12. The applicant was held in the old detention block of Bacău Prison until 13 August 2010 in cell no. 117, which measured 27.12 sq. m and accommodated eleven prisoners (2.46 sq. m of personal space). 13. There were no insect infestations in the prison in 2010. (b) Iaşi Prison 14. The applicant was held in Iaşi Prison for one year and two months, from 13 August 2010 to 24 September 2010 and from 26 March 2013 to 22 April 2014. During those periods he was placed in three different cells measuring from 19.3 sq. m to 33.3 sq. m, which he shared with seven and twenty-five other prisoners respectively (2.41 sq. m to 1.2 sq. m of personal space). 15. The cells had their own bathroom containing two toilet cabins and a sink. Cold water was available permanently. Inmates had access to the common shower area twice per week. 16. The block occupied by the applicant during the second period in which he stayed in that prison had been renovated in January 2012. Hence, the cells had been provided with showers, and hot water was available daily for two hours. Television sets had also been installed in the cells. A self-service canteen was created where prisoners could eat their meals in proper conditions. 17. As regards the presence of insects, the problem was known by the prison administration who explained that it had been caused by the high number of prisoners and their failure to maintain adequate hygiene. Disinfection operations were conducted at least twice per year, within the limits of the budget. 18. The Government submitted two statements written and signed by the applicant on 12 September 2013 and 27 January 2014, in which he had declared that he was satisfied with the conditions of detention in the recently renovated block of Iaşi Prison. (c) Galaţi Prison 19. The applicant was held in Galaţi Prison for two years and one month, from 24 September 2010 to 23 October 2012. During that period he was placed in four different cells measuring approximately 24 sq. m, which accommodated twelve to fifteen prisoners (1.6 to 2 sq. m of personal space). 20. The cells had their own bathrooms with a toilet and shower. Cold water, which was also used for drinking, was available daily from 6.30 to 8.30 a.m., 2 to 4.30 p.m. and 6.30 to 9 p.m. Prisoners had access to hot showers twice per week for one hour, depending on the number of prisoners and the heating capacity of the central heating system. 21. Cleaning products were provided monthly within the limits of the budget. The mattresses were renewed in August 2012. 22. Food was usually provided in accordance with the regulations but budgetary limitations meant that certain products were sometimes missing. (d) Brăila Prison 23. The applicant was held in Brăila Prison for almost four months, from 23 October 2012 to 19 February 2013. 24. The applicant was placed in a cell measuring 21.73 sq. m together with twelve other prisoners (1.6 sq. m of personal space). The cell had three rows of bunk beds totalling fifteen places. 25. Access to hot showers was possible twice per week. The provision of personal hygiene products was sometimes reduced for budgetary reasons. Heating and food were provided in accordance with the legal norms. Prisoners were served their meals in their cells. 26. The applicant’s cell had two television sets on which prisoners could watch programmes during certain time slots. 27. The prison administration ensured the prisoners’ access to a daily walk and sports activities. 28. General disinfection operations were conducted four times in the course of 2012 and twice in 2013. The Government submitted that the prison had not allocated any funding for disinfectants in the budget for 2013 and had thus had to attract outside sponsorship to cover that cost. (e) Vaslui Prison 29. The applicant was detained in Vaslui Prison for one month and seven days, from 19 February to 26 March 2013. During that period he was placed in three different cells measuring 14.75 sq. m, which he shared with two to five other prisoners (personal space ranging from 2.95 sq. m to 4.91 sq. m). 30. Renovated cells were “put in use” on 1 May 2012 and new mattresses, pillows and sheets were distributed on the same date. The cells were equipped with the requisite furniture and a television set. They also had a bathroom with a toilet, a shower, a sink and a window. Cold water was available permanently and hot water twice per week for two hours. 31. Hygiene products were distributed monthly, but the statutory quantities could not be respected due to budgetary limitations. In 2013 prisoners were given washing powder ten times, soap and toilet paper nine times and chlorine eight times. 32. Food was prepared in accordance with the legal standards, in a fully renovated area. Prisoners were served their meals in their cells. 33. No disinfection was necessary in the applicant’s cell during the time he spent in Vaslui Prison. 34. The applicant alleged that while in detention he had developed various diseases as a result of the poor conditions in which he had been held. He alleged that the prison doctors had not provided him with adequate medical treatment and that all of the prisons had lacked medicines. More specifically, the prison infirmary had been open only once a week; whenever he had had a cold, an infection or even for the rheumatic fever he contracted in prison, he had usually been given only aspirin, as other medicines had never been available at the prison infirmary. In addition, he had suffered from toothache and other associated aches and pains and, despite repeatedly asking, he had never been taken to a dentist or given any painkillers, even when he finally developed a tooth infection and suffered pain for several consecutive weeks. 35. On 22 July 2010 the applicant was examined at the Bacău Prison infirmary and was diagnosed with lumbago. He received one tube of Diclofenac cream. 36. On 28 August 2013 the applicant was admitted to Iaşi Military Emergency Hospital and was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the hands, chronic tetany (a neurological syndrome consisting of painful muscular spasms and cramps) and lower back pain. He was released with the recommendation to avoid effort, exposure to cold and dampness, and was prescribed symptomatic medication. On 30 September and 29 October 2013 the applicant received a total of ten anti-inflammatory tablets. 37. With respect to the dental care available to the applicant, the Government submitted that he had been examined and diagnosed, and had undergone treatment such as extractions, fillings and dental pulp extirpations on numerous occasions. On all those occasions he had also received appropriate treatment with antibiotics and pain killers. 38. Lastly, the Government submitted that no complaints concerning any alleged lack of adequate medical treatment had ever been lodged by the applicant 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'}

5. The applicant was born in 1989 and is currently detained in Garbalin Prison. 6. On an unspecified date before 2010 the applicant was convicted of homicide and sentenced to imprisonment. The term of his imprisonment was to end in 2016. 7. At the relevant time he was detained in Włocławek Prison. 8. On 23 December 2010 the applicant’s grandmother died. 9. On 29 December 2010 in the morning the applicant received a telegram from his relatives informing him of the death of his grandmother and of the date of her funeral. The funeral was scheduled to take place on 30 December 2010 at 12 noon in Zgierz, a town located at a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from Włocławek. 10. On the same day the applicant made an application for leave from prison to attend his grandmother’s funeral. His application was transmitted by the penitentiary authorities to the Włocławek Regional Court via fax at 2.46 p.m. It read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “I kindly ask the Regional Court to grant me leave to attend the funeral of my grandmother. She was very close to me, she was the person who had raised me. Thank you very much for considering my request.” 11. By a decision of 30 December 2010 the Penitentiary Judge of the Włocławek Regional Court (sędzia penitencjarny), refused the applicant’s request. The reasons given for the decision were as follows: “... the convicted person’s application for compassionate leave under Article 141a § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences was refused due to the nature of the committed offence, negative opinion about the convicted (negatywna opinia środowiskowa) and the remote date foreseen for the completion of his sentence.” 12. The decision was notified in writing to the applicant on 31 December 2010. The applicant did not appeal against it as the funeral had already taken place and he considered that this would be purposeless.

{'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 1950 and lives in Bucharest. 6. The facts of the case are linked to the same events and criminal proceedings as those described in the case of Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011). They can be summarised as follows. 7. The military operations which were conducted in the second half of December 1989 in several towns in Romania caused many civilian victims. According to a letter of 5 June 2008 from the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, “more than 1,200 people died, more than 5,000 people were injured and several thousand people were unlawfully deprived of their liberty and subjected to ill treatment”, in Bucharest, Timişoara, Reşiţa, Buzău, Constanţa, Craiova, Brăila, Oradea, Cluj, Braşov, Târgu Mureş, Sibiu and other towns in Romania. In addition, it appears from Ministry of Defence documents, declassified by Government decision no. 94/2010 of 10 February 2010, that thousands of servicemen, equipped with combat tanks and other armed vehicles, were deployed in Bucharest and other cities. During the period of 17 to 30 December 1989 they used considerable quantities of ammunition. 8. In Bucharest, many people were killed or wounded by gunshot. According to a report of 24 July 1990 by the Directorate of Military Prosecutor’s Offices (Direcţia procuraturilor militare), in the night of 21 to 22 December 1989 “48 people died and 150 people were injured in Bucharest as a result of the violent crackdown by the armed forces, including through the use of firearms”. 9. Many victims were also killed after 22 December 1989, the date on which the then Head of State was deposed. 10. On 25 December 1989, the applicant’s husband was shot in the head and killed at his home in Bucharest. He had been sitting in front of a window of his apartment, when a bullet came from outside. According to a ballistic report of 17 April 1990, the bullet had been shot by an AKM-type semi-automatic rifle. 11. On an unspecified date in 1990, the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband. From 1990 to 1994, the Military Prosecutor’s Office heard several witness testimonies in connection with the investigation. 12. In parallel with the investigation concerning the death of the applicant’s husband, a separate criminal investigation concerning the use of violence in Bucharest during the last days of December 1989 was undertaken (file no. 97/P/1990). 13. On 23 May 2007, the file concerning the death of the applicant’s husband was joined to file no. 97/P/1990. 14. By a decision of 15 January 2008, the military prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided to separate the investigation concerning sixteen civilian defendants, including a former President of Romania and a former Head of the Romanian Intelligence Service, from the investigation involving military personnel, and to relinquish its jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 15. In a letter of 5 June 2008, the head prosecutor of the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice indicated that during the period from 2005 to 2007, 6,370 individuals had been questioned in case no. 97/P/1990. In addition, 1,100 ballistics reports had been prepared, and more than 10,000 investigative measures and 1,000 on-site inquiries had been conducted. He also stated: “among the reasons for the delay [in the investigation], mention should be made of the repetitive measures ... concerning the transfer of the case from one prosecutor to another ...; the lack of cooperation on the part of the institutions involved in the crackdown of December 1989 ..., the extreme complexity of the investigation ... given that the necessary investigative measures had not been conducted immediately after the impugned homicides ...”. 16. According to a press release issued on 10 February 2009 by the Public Information Office at the High Council of the Judiciary, the President of the Council intended to ask the Judicial Inspection Board to identify the reasons which had prevented the criminal investigation from being conducted rapidly. 17. The criminal investigation appears to be still pending before the domestic authorities. 18. On 22 December 2004, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Romanian Ministry of Public Finances, seeking non-pecuniary damage amounting to 1,000,000,000 lei (ROL) under Articles 998-999 of the Romanian Civil Code in force at that time. She submitted that the Romanian State was liable for the lack of diligence in the investigation of the violent events of December 1989 and for the failure to identify and punish those responsible for the death of her husband. 19. By a judgment of 2 February 2006, the Bucharest District Court dismissed the proceedings instituted by the applicant as time-barred, by allowing an objection concerning the statute of limitation of the right to trial. It rejected an objection of lack of legal capacity on the part of the defendant, as raised by the Ministry of Public Finances. 20. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the judgment. 21. By a judgment of 12 March 2007, the Bucharest County Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed the judgment on the grounds that it had incorrectly allowed the objection concerning the statute of limitation, and remitted the case for re-examination to the first-instance court. 22. On 12 June 2008 the Bucharest District Court ordered the Romanian Ministry of Public Finances to pay the applicant 100,000 new Romanian lei (RON) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, as well as court fees amounting to RON 3,352. The court held that the criminal investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband had not been effective and prompt as required by Article 2 of the Convention. During a period of more than eighteen years after the death of her husband, the only measure taken by the prosecutor’s office had been to join the file regarding her husband’s death to the main file concerning the events of December 1989. Therefore, the court considered that the conditions for triggering the tort liability of the State had been met, namely the existence of prejudice towards the applicant, in particular the frustration, confusion and extended suffering derived from the lack of an explanation as to the circumstances in which her husband had been killed, the identification and punishment of those responsible, and a causal link between the unlawful deed and the damage incurred. 23. The Ministry of Public Finances appealed on points of law against the judgment. 24. On 3 February 2009, the Bucharest County Court partially allowed the appeal on points of law lodged by the Ministry of Public Finances and ordered it to pay the applicant RON 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the ineffective criminal investigation into the death of her husband during the violent events of December 1989 in Bucharest. In determining the non-pecuniary damages payable, the court held that it should take into consideration generally, but also in respect of the present case, the gravity and intensity of the psychological suffering caused to the applicant, who was a victim of the unlawful deed, the consequences of such prejudice on a social and family level, as well as the equity criterion. It considered that the overall amount of compensation payable to the applicant for her inability to have peace of mind caused by the ineffective investigation could not exceed RON 50,000. In addition, it upheld the first-instance court’s judgment on the restitution to the applicant of the court fees relating to the civil proceedings brought by her.

{'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 Moscow. 6. On 17 April 2003 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of robbery and extortion and took him to the Yuzhnoye Tushino police station in Moscow. The applicant alleged that once at the police station, he had been beaten by police officers to make him confess to criminal offences and that he had then written a self-incriminating statement. 7. On 18 April 2003 the Tushinskiy Interdistrict Prosecutor’s Office (“the prosecutor’s office”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of several criminal offences, including robbery and extortion. On the same date the applicant was released. 8. On 24 April 2003 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office ordered that the applicant be taken to the police station for questioning. The order stated that despite numerous summonses, the applicant had failed to appear at the police station for questioning. 9. On 25 April 2003 the investigator questioned the applicant in the presence of legal counsel. During the interview the applicant submitted that he had confessed to criminal offences on 17 April 2003 after having been beaten by police officers. 10. On the same date the investigator charged the applicant with several criminal offences, including robbery and extortion, and made him sign a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence. The decision stated that the applicant had a permanent address and was not trying to abscond and that there was therefore no need to deprive him of his liberty. It appears from the material of the case file that starting from that date and throughout the criminal proceedings against him, the applicant was assisted by legal counsel. 11. On 28 April 2003 the deputy prosecutor quashed that decision on the grounds that the applicant had failed to appear at the police station despite numerous summonses, had no permanent job, and might reoffend and interfere with the proceedings. 12. On the same date the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows: “It transpires from the evidence at the disposal of the court that Mr Mikhalchuk A.V. has committed serious and particularly serious offences punishable by deprivation of liberty and that he has no job. Having regard to the nature of the offences committed by him, the court has grounds to believe that he might abscond and reoffend. Having regard to the above, the court comes to the conclusion that there are no grounds to choose a more lenient measure of restraint, other than pre-trial detention.” 13. On 19 May 2003, following the applicant’s statement that he had been beaten by police officers, the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. 14. On 31 May 2003 a forensic expert concluded that the applicant had several bruises on his body and face. However, it was impossible to ascertain the date on which they had been sustained. 15. On the same date the investigator refused to open criminal proceedings into the applicant’s complaints that he had been beaten by police officers on 17 April 2003. The decision stated that the applicant had the right to appeal against it either to a prosecutor or to a court. On the same date a copy of that decision was sent to the applicant. 16. On 20 June 2003 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 July 2003, holding as follows: “It transpires from the evidence at the court’s disposal that Mr Mikhalchuk A.V. is charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment and that he has no job. Having regard to the above, the court has grounds to believe that if released Mr Mikhalchuk A.V. might abscond and therefore the court concludes that there are no grounds to choose a more lenient measure of restraint in respect of Mr Mikhalchuk.” 17. On an unspecified the criminal case against the applicant was referred to the District Court for trial. 18. On 4 August 2003 the District Court set the preliminary hearing of the case for 19 August 2003 and held that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant, namely, pre-trial detention, should remain unchanged. 19. On 19 August 2003 the District Court held a preliminary hearing. 20. On 12 January 2004 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release and extended his and his co-defendant’s detention until 16 April 2004. The District Court held as follows: “Mr Mikhalchuk and Mr Isayev are charged with serious and particularly serious offences. Mr Mikhalchuk was placed in pre-trial detention on 28 April 2003 ... Taking into account that the case had not yet been examined on the merits, a psychological expert examination of the victim had been arranged and had not yet been performed, and having regard to the gravity of charges against each of the co‑defendants, the court considers that no other measure of restraint can ensure their appropriate behaviour. Therefore the court cannot choose another, more lenient preventive measure.” 21. In his appeal against the detention order the applicant submitted that the District Court had not given any grounds to support its assertion that it could not apply a different preventive measure. 22. On 17 February 2004 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the decision of 12 January 2004 was lawful and justified, in particular, by the gravity of the charges against him. 23. On 13 April 2004 the District Court extended the detention of the applicant and his co-defendants until 16 July 2004, on the same grounds as in its decision of 12 January 2004. 24. On 14 July 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty of several criminal offences, including robbery and extortion, and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty and submitted that he had confessed to the criminal offences under physical pressure from police officers. The District Court did not address his complaint that he had been beaten by police officers. It based the applicant’s conviction on statements by victims, witnesses, his co-defendants and a large amount of material evidence. The District Court also held that the applicant’s statements made during the pre-trial proceedings could form the basis of a judgment since they had been made in the presence of legal counsel. 25. In his appeal against the conviction the applicant submitted, among other things, that he had confessed to the crimes after being beaten by police officers and that the investigator had refused to institute criminal proceedings against them. 26. On 19 October 2004 the City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction. It appears from the appeal decision that the City Court did not address the applicant’s complaint about his forced confessions. 27. Following the applicant’s repeated complaints about the ill-treatment by police officers on 17 April 2003, on 4 May 2005 the prosecutor’s office again informed the applicant that it was open to him to challenge the decision of 31 May 2003 in court. It appears from the material in the case file that the applicant did not lodge a judicial appeal against the decision of 31 May 2003. 28. On 16 June 2005, the Presidium of the City Court, by way of a supervisory review, modified the part of the judgment of 14 July 2004 concerning the legal classification of the offences and upheld the remaining part of 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'}

5. The applicants are: 1) Ms Khava Aziyeva, who was born in 1983, 2) Ms Aysha Aziyeva, who was born in 2008, and 3) Mr Abdurrakhman Aziyev, who was born in 2010. They live in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. They are the relatives of Mr Rizvan Aziyev, who was born in 1979. The first applicant is his sister, the second and third applicants are his children. 6. At the material time the applicants and Mr Rizvan Aziyev lived at 23 Gagarina Street, in the settlement of Staraya Sunzha in Grozny. The first applicant’s two other brothers, Mr I.A. and Mr Kh.A., had been convicted for the participation in illegal armed groups and were serving their sentences. 7. In 2005 Mr Rizvan Aziyev was arrested in Irkutsk, Russia, and then convicted for the participation in illegal armed groups. In 2008 he was released upon completion of the sentence. 8. For an unspecified period of time, prior to August 2008, the first applicant was married to Mr A.Kh. who was wanted by the authorities for active membership in illegal armed groups. On 31 October 2009 he had been killed as a result of a special operation carried out by the authorities in Grozny (see application Gaysanova v Russia, no. 62235/09 concerning alleged abduction of the applicant’s daughter Ms Zarema Gaysanova by State agents during that special operation). 9. On 31 October 2009 the applicants and their relatives were at home. Mr Rizvan Aziyev was not there. The applicants’ neighbours in the house across the street (at 20 Gagarina Street) were preparing a wedding dinner; their house was full of guests. 10. In the evening on that date a large group of servicemen in military camouflage or black uniforms arrived in about fifteen UAZ and VAZ model civilian vehicles and cordoned off several streets around the applicants’ house. According to the applicants’ neighbours, the servicemen blocked access to the nearby streets to its residents explaining that they were conducting a special operation. 11. At about 7 p.m. a group of about twenty to thirty armed men arrived at the applicants’ house in Gagarina Street in several vehicles. The men were in military camouflage uniforms, they were armed with automatic rifles, had portable radios and special military ammunition belts. The men spoke Chechen and Russian. The applicants and their relatives thought that these men were police officers. 12. Three of the men went into the applicants’ house whereas the rest remained outside blocking the building and the nearby houses. One of the three men, who was in charge of the group, demanded in Chechen that the first applicant telephoned her brother Mr Rizvan Aziyev and asked him to come home without mentioning that the police were waiting for him. Meanwhile, two other men quickly searched the house. One of the intruders received a phone call on his mobile phone and explained to someone that he was at work. 13. The first applicant called Mr Rizvan Aziyev and asked him to come home as soon as possible. Mr Rizvan Aziyev told her that he would be there in about ten minutes. The man in charge of the intruders’ group stood next to the applicant and listened to the conversation. As soon as the conversation was over he took the phone away from her and went outside whilst one of his colleagues remained in the house. 14. The first applicant looked out from the window and saw that a group of about fifteen other men was standing under the shed in the yard. 15. About twenty minutes later one of the policemen opened the house door and asked his colleague to come out. The first applicant tried to follow the man, but he closed the door from the outside. About two minutes later he opened it and left the yard. Immediately afterwards the first applicant heard several cars starting their engines and driving away from the house. 16. According to the applicants’ neighbour, Ms R.A., she saw Mr Rizvan Aziyev being taken away by the abductors who had waited for him next to the applicants’ house. 17. A number of the applicants’ neighbours and the wedding guests at 20 Gagarina Street witnessed the arrival of the group of the men, who had resembled police officers, to the applicants’ house and Mr Rizvan Aziyev’s removal by them. According to the applicants, the overall duration of the special operation was about half an hour. 18. About an hour after the abduction, the first applicant’s relative Mr A. - M.A. went to the Leninskiy district department of the interior in Grozny (the ROVD) and complained in writing about the arrest of Mr Rizvan Aziyev. The officers at the ROVD denied any involvement into the events. 19. On the same evening, 31 October 2009, an officer who introduced himself as Mr Isa, the district police officer, arrived at the applicants’ house, although neither the applicants nor their relatives had informed him about the events. The officer knew that Mr Rizvan Aziyev had been arrested and asked the applicants and their relatives about him and Ms Zarema Gaysanova (see paragraph 8 above). He denied having any knowledge about the whereabouts of the applicants’ relative but promised to assist the applicants in his release. Next morning the applicants’ relative, Mr A.-M.A., spoke with him. The officer denied having any information concerning Mr Rizvan Aziyev’s whereabouts. Subsequently, the applicants found out that Mr Isa had not been a district police officer but a high-ranking officer of a Chechen law-enforcement agency. 20. The following days the applicants and their relatives complained about the abduction to a number of local law-enforcement agencies. None of them accepted the responsibility for arresting or detaining Mr Rizvan Aziyev. 21. On 5 February 2011 the first applicant watched the video footage of the special operation conducted by the authorities against Mr A.Kh. on 31 October 2009 (see paragraphs 8 and 19 above) and recognised one of the law-enforcement officers who had participated in the special operation against Mr A.Kh. as the commanding officer of the group of the abductors who had taken away Mr Rizvan Aziyev later on the same date. That officer on the video had spoken with the Chechnya Minister of the Interior Mr Alkhanov. It is unclear whether the first applicant informed the authorities thereof. 22. The applicants’ submission concerning the circumstances of the abduction and the surrounding events is based on the statements of the first applicant lodged with the application and the additional statement dated 10 February 2011, the statement of the applicants’ neighbour Mr M.T. dated 4 February 2011, the statement of the applicants’ relative Mr A.A. dated 4 February 2011 and copies of the contents of the investigation file opened in connection with Mr Rizvan Aziyev’s abduction. 23. The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicants. At the same time they pointed out that the abduction had been perpetrated by unidentified armed persons, whose outfits and firearms had been common among ordinary criminals, that the body of Mr Rizvan Aziyev was never found and that the witnesses to the abduction had not been sufficiently precise in the description of the abductors’ appearance. 24. On 1 November 2009 the first applicant complained in writing about the abduction to the Leninskiy inter-district prosecutor’s office (the prosecutor’s office). 25. On 2 November 2009 the investigator from the ROVD forwarded information requests to various district police departments in Chechnya asking whether Mr Rizvan Aziyev’s body had been found and/or whether he had been detained by their agents. 26. On 4 November 2009 a group of investigators from the prosecutor’s office arrived at the applicants’ house and briefly examined the crime scene. They only took photographs of the house and questioned Ms R.A. who stated that she had seen the abductors taking away Mr Rizvan Aziyev (see paragraph 42 below). 27. On 6 November 2009 the investigators again examined the crime scene and collected photos and the passport of Mr Rizvan Aziyev. 28. On 11 November 2009 the Leninskiy district investigating department of the prosecutor’s office (the investigating department) instituted an investigation into the abduction of Mr Rizvan Aziyev under Article 126 § 2 (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 66093. 29. On 12 November 2009 the interim head of the investigating department ordered that by 30 November 2009 the investigators into the abduction took, amongst others, the following steps: “... the murder of Mr Rizvan Aziyev could have been committed by servicemen of law-enforcement agencies. To investigate the matter fully and thoroughly and identify the perpetrators, it is necessary to ... establish eye-witness to the crime and obtain their information concerning its circumstances and the culprits ...” 30. On 14 November 2009 the investigators forwarded information requests to local hospitals and detention centres asking whether they had any information concerning Mr Rizvan Aziyev. The replies received were in the negative. 31. On 16 November 2009 the applicants’ relatives, Ms Kha.A. and Mr A.-M.A., were granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned (see paragraphs 41 and 44 below). 32. On 16 and 17 November 2009 the investigators reiterated their information requests to various district police departments in Chechnya asking whether Mr Rizvan Aziyev’s body had been found and/or whether he had been detained by their agents. The replies received were in the negative. 33. On 10 December 2009 the deputy head of the Chechnya investigating committee criticised the investigation in the criminal case and ordered that, amongst others, that the following steps be taken: “... to correct the deficiencies of the investigation in the criminal case... it is necessary: - to examine again the crime scene to find such evidence as fingerprints with the participation of the [relevant] forensic expert;... - to obtain list of phone calls made by Mr Rizvan Aziyev ... and the list of all mobile phone calls made in the vicinity of the crime scene between 6 and 8 p.m. on 31 October 2009 and establish the owners of the phone numbers from which they had originated ...” 34. On 15 or 16 December 2009 the investigators again examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 35. On 11 February 2010 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 36. On 20 April 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 37. On an unspecified date between January and April 2010 the investigators obtained a detailed list of connections made from the Mr Rizvan Aziyev’s mobile telephone on the date of the abduction, 31 October 2009. According to the list, after the abduction, text-messages were received by the phone in the vicinity of the town of Argun which was about fifteen kilometres from Grozny. 38. According to the applicants, the investigators did not inform them of the progress in the criminal case. The applicants were able to familiarise themselves with the contents of the investigation file only after having been provided with a copy of its contents furnished by the Government upon the Court’s request to this end made on 27 August 2010. 39. On 4 February 2011 the first applicant complained to the head of the Chechnya investigating department that the investigation of her brother’s abduction was ineffective, stating, amongst other things, the following: “... I familiarised myself with the contents of the criminal case file as a result of which the following has been established: 1. My brother had been detained at about 7.20 p.m. on 31 October 2009. The case file contains the list of his mobile phone connections for that day. According to that list, after the abduction, my brother’s mobile telephone had received a text message while being in Argun. At that time a checkpoint had been functioning on the roads leading from Grozny to Argun. Therefore, the persons who had detained my brother had taken him or his telephone to Argun; they had passed through two checkpoints of the law enforcement agencies. However, there is nothing in the case file showing that the investigators had taken any steps in respect of the staff who had manned those checkpoints on 31 October 2009. 2. On 31 October 2009 the persons who had detained my brother had carried out a special operation in Staraya Sunzha. From the information obtained from the local residents, they had condoned off several streets and had not allowed anyone into the sealed off area.... In addition, these persons had used at least ten vehicles ... from the case file it does not follow that the investigation took steps to verify this information. 3. The investigators, when questioning the local residents, could have asked them not only of the vehicles used by the abductors, but also of the direction in which they had left. However, no such steps have been taken. 4. Mr Rizvan Aziyev had been abducted by a large group of armed persons who had arrived in at least ten vehicles and cordoned off significant area in Staraya Sunzha. Every time if a member or several members of illegal armed groups resurface in Chechnya, the authorities take urgent steps to eliminate them. In my brother’s case, the law-enforcement agencies had failed to take any steps to search for his abductors. They had arrived at the crime scene to inspect it several days later after the crime had been reported to them, in spite of the fact that already in about an hour after the abduction my cousin Mr A.-M.A. had informed the Leninskiy ROVD of the abduction. From this it is possible to conclude that the authorities had known that the persons who had detained my brother, had belonged to law-enforcement agencies. It also follows that the investigation in the criminal case should have questioned law‑enforcement officials responsible for the Leninskiy district in Grozny in order to find out the reasons for their failure to take urgent steps to apprehend the abductors ... 5. The persons who detained my brother on 31 October 2009 had been armed, in camouflage uniforms, had arrived as a large group, driven openly around Grozny and cordoned off large areas in the town. Nonetheless, the law enforcement authorities, having received the information about the abduction, had taken no steps to identify and arrest them. Such circumstances provide me with grounds to believe that my brother had been a victim of the State agents as a result of their special operation. In spite of those clear facts, the authorities had failed to establish the law-enforcement agencies empowered to carry out such operations in the Leninskiy district in Grozny and to questions their servicemen. 6. From the above it follows that the investigation should have obtained information of all special operations conducted in Grozny on 31 October 2009 and their results. From the case file it follows that no such information was requested by the investigators. 7. ... I and my relatives believe that Zarema Gaysanova provided the authorities with information about my brother which served as the basis for his arrest. Of course, Rizvan had known my former husband [Mr A.Kh.]. In connection with this the investigation in the criminal case should verify the theory of my brother’s abduction by the same persons who had abducted Zarema Gaysanova and question the law‑enforcement officer known as Mr Isa who had asked me about Zarema Gaysanova. From the case file it follows that no steps have been taken to follow up on this information. ... In the light of the above, the actions of the investigation in the criminal case which led to failure to take the above and other investigative steps are unlawful and unsubstantiated... On the basis of the above ... I request that you: 1. Recognise as unlawful and unsubstantiated the actions of the investigators in criminal case no. 66093 for the failure to take all of the above investigative steps; 3. Inform me of the results of the examination of this request in accordance with the law...” It is unclear whether any reply has been given to this request. 40. No further information was submitted to the Court on the progress of the proceedings; but from the documents submitted it follows that the investigation is still pending. 41. On 4 November 2009 the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative Ms Kha.A. who provided detailed description of the abduction similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. 42. On 4 or 6 November 2009 (the date is illegible) the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Ms R.A. whose statement was similar to that of the applicants submitted before the Court. In addition, she stated that the abductors had told her in Chechen to get back in the house and stay inside. From the conversation she had overheard between them, the witness had understood that the fair-haired intruder of medium height and solid built in embroidered scullcap (tubeteyka) had been in charge of the group. 43. On 6 November 2009 the investigators questioned the first applicant whose statement was similar to the applicants’ account submitted before the Court. 44. On 6 November 2009 the investigators also questioned Mr A.-M.A. whose statement was similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. 45. On 16 November 2009 the investigators again questioned Ms Kha.A. and Mr A.-M.A., both of whom reiterated their previously given statements. 46. On 23 November 2009 the investigators again questioned the first applicant who reiterated her previously given statement. 47. On 23 November 2009 the investigators also questioned the applicants’ relative and the father of Mr Rizvan Aziyev, Mr L.A., whose statement was similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. 48. On 25 November 2009 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Ms R.M. whose statement was similar to the applicants’ account submitted before the Court. In addition, she stated that the abductors had spoken Chechen and that she had subsequently learnt from the first applicant that when the abductors had arrived at their house, Mr Rizvan Aziyev had been in a shop in the 3rd district in Grozny. 49. On 16 December 2009 the investigators again questioned Ms Kha.A. and the first applicant both of whom reiterated their previously given statements.

{'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 Baku. 6. On 15 November 2007 there was a bomb explosion in Moscow. Criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with this explosion and on 13 December 2007 the applicant was charged with unlawful possession of explosive materials under Article 222.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. 7. On 21 December 2007 the Preobrazhensky District Court, Moscow City, ordered the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant and issued an arrest warrant. 8. On 26 December 2007 the arrest warrant was sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the MIA”) of Azerbaijan. 9. It appears from a letter of 30 October 2008 signed by the head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the MIA that following the transfer of the arrest warrant to the Azerbaijani authorities the police contacted the applicant, who was in Azerbaijan, sometime in January 2008. The applicant came voluntarily to the MIA and submitted that he had no link with the explosion in question. The MIA established that the applicant was an Azerbaijani national and decided to transfer his statement to the relevant Russian authorities. At the request of the Russian authorities, on 31 January 2008 the applicant was again questioned at the MIA with the participation of two Russian police officers about his possible involvement in the explosion. Following a two-hour interrogation, no action was taken against the applicant and he left the premises of the Ministry. 10. On 30 June 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Organised Crime Department (“the OCD”) of the MIA about an alleged misappropriation of his property by a certain E.H. and others. Dissatisfied with the progress in the case, the applicant subsequently lodged complaints with various State authorities about the failure of the OCD to investigate his complaint. 11. On 18 September 2008 the applicant was summoned to the OCD and on arrival there he was arrested. The applicant was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer, and his arrest was not documented. 12. As the applicant’s family had no information about his whereabouts, on 21 September 2008 they lodged a criminal complaint with Khatai District Police Station No. 36 related to the applicant’s disappearance, and submitted a photograph of him to the police. 13. On 22 September 2008 the OCD informed the applicant’s family by telephone that the applicant had been arrested and detained in the temporary detention facility of the OCD. 14. On 24 September 2008 the applicant’s brother was allowed to visit him in the temporary detention facility of the OCD. However, the applicant’s family was not informed of the reasons for the applicant’s arrest and detention. 15. On 26 September 2008 the applicant’s family contacted a lawyer for the applicant’s defence and at around 10 a.m. on 27 September 2008 a contract was concluded between them. 16. At around 3 p.m. on 27 September 2008 the lawyer went to the OCD and tried to meet the applicant. However, the lawyer was informed that he could not meet the applicant without the authorisation of the investigator. The lawyer immediately sent telegrams to the MIA, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ombudsman complaining that he had been prevented from meeting the applicant. 17. At around 9 p.m. on 27 September 2008 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Narimanov District Court who ordered his detention on remand (see paragraph 22 below). His lawyer was not informed about the hearing; the applicant was represented by a State-appointed lawyer. 18. While detained in the temporary detention facility of the OCD, he was during the period from 18 September to 2 October 2008 forced to change his statement in the criminal case concerning the misappropriation of his property by E.H. and others. 19. As regards the criminal complaint lodged by his family (see paragraph 12 above), by letter of 2 October 2008 the head of Khatai District Police Station No. 36 informed the applicant’s family of the investigator’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings in connection with his disappearance. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “On 21 September 2008 citizen B. Nagiyev lodged a complaint with Khatai District Police Station No. 36, stating that his brother, Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu [the applicant], born in 1980, left his home at around 1.15 p.m. on 19 September 2008 and has not returned. Citizen B. Nagiyev also made a statement confirming the content of his complaint. A report was prepared and transferred to Khatai District Police Station No. 36 in connection with the search for Asif Nagiyev [the applicant]. During the search, all the police stations in Baku were instructed and other measures were taken. During the search, non-official information was received indicating that Asif Nagiyev had been arrested by the OCD of the MIA because he was wanted in Russia. An enquiry in this regard was sent to the OCD, but no response has yet been received. The whereabouts of A. Nagiyev have not yet been clearly established. Taking into account that there is no evidence that a crime has been committed, institution of criminal proceedings in connection with this subject should be rejected.” 20. The applicant was arrested at around noon on 27 September 2008. The relevant part of the official record of the applicant’s arrest (cinayət törətmiş şəxsin tutulması barədə protokol) of 27 September 2008 reads as follows: “... At around noon on 27 September 2008, Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu [the applicant], whose identity was established later, born on ... and in ... was arrested in the district of Narimanov in Baku and taken to the department. It was established during questioning there that on 21 December 2007 Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu was charged under Article 222.2 (unlawful possession of explosive materials) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by the Moscow City Prosecutor’s Office ... an arrest warrant was issued, and the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody was ordered ... Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu was transferred to the temporary detention facility of the OCD ...” 21. It appears from the extracts from the logbook of the OCD’s temporary detention facility submitted to the Court by the Government that the applicant arrived at the detention facility at 4 p.m. on 27 September 2008 following a decision of a Narimanov District Court judge. 22. On 27 September 2008 a judge of the Narimanov District Court, relying on the Russian court’s detention order of 21 December 2007, ordered the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant for a period of two months. At the hearing the applicant was represented by a State-appointed lawyer. The judge relied on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) of the Republic of Azerbaijan relating to detention with a view to extradition when she ordered the applicant’s detention. The judge justified this measure as follows: “Taking into account the fact that Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu committed a less serious criminal offence and, if released, would obstruct the objective functioning of the investigation by absconding from it, I consider it necessary to confirm the decision of 21 December 2007 of the Federal Court of Preobrazhensky District, Moscow City, to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of him for a period of two months. In fact, according to Article 495.1 of the CCrP of the Republic of Azerbaijan, upon receipt of a request for extradition of a person and a copy of a detention order in respect of him from the competent authority of a foreign State, the prosecuting authority of the Republic of Azerbaijan to which the request is addressed may, if necessary, take measures in compliance with the provisions of this Code to have the person arrested and detained before a decision on extradition is taken.” 23. Following a series of complaints to the various domestic authorities, on 8 October 2008 the applicant’s lawyer was provided with a copy of the record of the applicant’s arrest and the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 27 September 2008. 24. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 27 September 2008, claiming that his arrest and detention had been unlawful. In particular, he submitted that he had been unlawfully arrested on 18 September 2008 and that there were no criminal proceedings pending against him in Azerbaijan. He further argued that as he was an Azerbaijani national he could not be extradited to a foreign State, which followed from Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and Article 13 of the Criminal Code. He also submitted that his arrest and detention had not been carried out in accordance with domestic and international law, since no official request accompanied by the relevant documents for his detention and extradition was ever submitted by the Russian authorities. The applicant’s lawyer also submitted a request for restoration of the time-limits for lodging an appeal. In this connection, the lawyer stated that although at 10 a.m. on 27 September 2008 the applicant’s family had appointed him as a lawyer for the applicant’s defence, he had not been informed of the Narimanov District Court’s hearing, which was held at around 9 p.m. on 27 September 2008. He further noted that he had been provided with a copy of the detention order only on 8 October 2008. 25. On 3 November 2008 the Narimanov District Court granted the request for restoration of the time-limits for lodging an appeal and forwarded the applicant’s appeal to the appellate court for examination. 26. On 7 November 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 27 September 2008 without considering the applicant’s specific complaints. 27. On 27 November 2008 the Narimanov District Court granted the prosecutor’s request for the extension of the applicant’s detention for a period of two months, relying on Article 159 of the CCrP concerning the extension of detention periods pending criminal proceedings. In its decision, the court noted that as the applicant was an Azerbaijani national he could not be extradited to a foreign State, and for this reason the Azerbaijani Prosecutor General’s Office had requested the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to transfer the applicant’s criminal case to the Azerbaijani authorities. The court thus justified the extension of the applicant’s detention period by the fact that more time was needed for the submission of relevant documents relating to the applicant’s case from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to the Azerbaijani authorities. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “As the extradition of Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu to Russia is impossible because he is a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan, a request was sent to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office for the criminal case to be transferred to the Azerbaijani Prosecutor General’s Office for the criminal inquiry to be continued in the Republic of Azerbaijan. Taking into account the fact that more time is needed for the transfer of the criminal case relating to the accused Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to the Azerbaijani Prosecutor General’s Office, but that the detention period of Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu ends on 27 November 2008, I consider the request justified in order to ensure the criminal prosecution of Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu in the future and to prevent him from absconding from the court proceedings. Taking into account the above-mentioned matters and relying on Articles 159, 448 and 454 of the CCrP, I decide that the detention period of Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu born on ... and in ... must be extended for a period of two months, until 27 January 2009.” 28. The applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that the extension of his detention was unlawful. He noted in particular that although the court had relied on Article 159 of the CCrP concerning the extension of detention periods pending criminal proceedings when it ordered the extension of his detention, there were no criminal proceedings pending against him in Azerbaijan, and therefore his detention could not be extended on this basis. He also submitted that the court had failed to justify the extension of his detention, and that his continued detention was in breach of the relevant international conventions. The applicant further reiterated the complaint concerning his unlawful detention from 18 to 27 September 2008 in the OCD, noting that the main reason for his detention was his complaint concerning misappropriation of his property by E.H. and others. In this connection he disputed the content of the official record of his arrest, stating that his family could not possibly have known about his arrest at 10 a.m. on 27 September 2008 and concluded a contract with his lawyer for his defence, if he had been arrested at noon on 27 September 2008 as indicated in the official record. 29. On 5 December 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The appellate court made no mention of the applicant’s particular complaints. 30. On 12 December 2008 the applicant lodged a request with the Narimanov District Court, asking the court to replace his remand in custody with the preventive measure of house arrest. He claimed, in particular, that his detention had not been justified and that there was no reason for his continued detention. In support of his request, the applicant pointed out that he had a permanent place of residence and that there was no risk of his absconding from or obstructing the investigation. 31. On 19 December 2008 the Narimanov District Court dismissed the request. 32. On 27 January 2009 the Narimanov District Court extended the applicant’s detention for a period of one month, relying on Article 159 of the CCrP concerning the extension of detention periods pending criminal proceedings. As to the justification for the extension of the applicant’s detention, the court relied on an almost identical wording as that of the court’s decision of 27 November 2008. 33. On 29 January 2009 the applicant appealed against this decision, reiterating his previous complaints. He noted in this regard that the domestic courts had ignored his complaint concerning his unlawful detention in the temporary detention facility of the OCD from 18 to 27 September 2008. He further stated that although the Russian authorities had never submitted any extradition request or a request for institution of criminal proceedings against him in Azerbaijan, he had been detained in breach of the domestic and international law. In particular, he referred to Article 497.1 of the CCrP, which provides that a person arrested with a view to extradition must be released if no official request for his extradition is received by the Azerbaijani prosecuting authority within forty-eight hours of his arrest. 34. On 2 February 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. The appellate court made no mention of the applicant’s specific complaints. 35. On 27 February 2009 the Narimanov District Court again extended the applicant’s detention for a period of one month. The court’s decision was almost identical in its wording to the decisions of 27 November 2008 and 27 January 2009. 36. On 2 March 2009 the applicant appealed against this decision. He reiterated that the domestic courts had ignored his complaint concerning his unlawful detention in the temporary detention facility of the OCD from 18 to 27 September 2008. He further stated that it was not legitimate for the domestic courts to order the extension of his detention on the ground that more time was needed for the transfer of relevant documents from the Russian authorities to their Azerbaijani counterparts. 37. On 10 March 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal granted the applicant’s appeal and ordered his release. The appellate court quashed the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 27 February 2009, holding that the first-instance court had erred in extending the applicant’s continued detention. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “It appears from the OCD’s decision of 22 September 2008, concerning an operational-search measure and which was added to the case file, that a decision concerning an operational-search measure in respect of Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu, who was wanted for a crime committed in Russia, was taken. The record of the applicant’s arrest, drawn up by ..., indicates that Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu was arrested on 27 September 2008. In accordance with the requirements of Article 495.1 of the CCrP of the Republic of Azerbaijan, upon receipt of a request for extradition of a person and a copy of a detention order in respect of him from the competent authority of a foreign State, the prosecuting authority of the Republic of Azerbaijan to which the request is addressed may, if necessary, take measures in compliance with the provisions of this Code to have the person arrested and detained before the decision on extradition is taken ... In accordance with paragraph II of Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan may under no circumstances be extradited to a foreign state. In accordance with Article 13 of the Criminal Code, a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan who has committed a crime on the territory of a foreign state shall not be extradited to that foreign state ... In accordance with the requirements of Article 75 of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 13 January 2004, if a request for extradition, as provided for in Article 67 of the Convention, and accompanying documents were not transferred within forty days of the date of arrest of the person arrested, the person must be immediately released. It appears that A. Nagiyev has been in detention for five months and thirteen days, or one hundred and sixty-three days, and that during this period no additional material concerning him was sent from the Russian Federation to the Azerbaijani authorities ... Therefore, taking into account the above-mentioned findings, the panel of the court considers that the appeal of the lawyer must be granted and that the Narimanov District Court’s decision on extension of A. Nagiyev’s detention period must be quashed.”

{'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 1976 and lives in Zakan-Yurt, the Chechen Republic. The applicant is the brother of Mr Rustam (also known as Balavdi and Khamzat) Kagirov, who was born in 1979. Mr Rustam Kagirov suffered from a disability due to removal of one of his lungs. 7. According to the applicant, his brother had held strong religious beliefs and had studied at an “Islamic Institute” in Grozny. In the applicant’s opinion, Mr Rustam Kagirov’s religious convictions could have led the authorities to consider him a follower of Wahhabism, an Islamic fundamentalist movement, whose members had been accused of supporting illegal armed groups in the Chechen Republic. 8. On an unspecified date in the autumn of 2004 officers from the 7th Company of the 2nd Regiment of the Chechen traffic police allegedly apprehended Mr Rustam Kagirov and tortured him for two days demanding that he confessed to involvement in illegal armed groups. The officers had suspected him of the illegal activity because of a photograph depicting two men, one of whom thought to be a leader of an illegal armed group and the other one resembled Mr Rustam Kagirov. 9. At the time of the events described below, the Kagirov family, including the applicant and Mr Rustam Kagirov, resided at 50 Sovetskaya Street in Zakan-Yurt. Their house was situated about a hundred metres from the building of the village administration. 10. On 17 May 2009 Mr Ramzan Kadyrov, President of the Chechen Republic, was supposed to take the Kavkaz (also referred to as the Rostov‑Baku) motorway. Therefore, a section of the route between Grozny and Zakan-Yurt was heavily guarded by traffic police officers, who were stationed at every intersection and who would not let any vehicle through without checking the drivers’ and passengers’ identity documents. Driving from Grozny to Zakan-Yurt on that day the applicant was stopped on the motorway three times for identity checks. 11. At about 6 p.m. on that day the applicant, having pulled over to his house, saw a black VAZ Priora vehicle with registration number A 720 AT 95 parked next to the village administration in Sovetskaya Street. Meanwhile, Mr Rustam Kagirov and his friend Mr Kh.Kh., were walking in the street, next to the administration. When they were passing by the Priora vehicle, three armed men in black uniforms got out of the car. Two of them grabbed Mr Rustam Kagirov and forced him into the back seat. The third man pointed his gun at Mr Kh.Kh. and shouted in Chechen: “Turn around or I will shoot you!” Immediately thereafter the armed men got back in the car and drove off at high speed. 12. A few moments later the applicant, accompanied by Mr Kh.Kh., got into his car to follow the abductors. They saw that the abductors had passed, unimpeded, a roadblock situated on the road leading to Zakan-Yurt from the Kavkaz motorway which was manned by several traffic police officers. Then the abductors took the Kavkaz motorway and headed in the direction of Grozny. At the roadblock the applicant asked the police officers about the identity of the persons in the Priora vehicle they had just let to pass through and whether their documents had been checked. The policemen replied that they had not checked their documents as the persons had been in a hurry. Although the applicant immediately informed them that the men in Priora car had abducted his brother, the policemen disregarded that information and continued checking other vehicles. Despite being equipped with portable radio sets and mobile phones, they took no steps to alert other policemen of the abduction or ask them to stop the abductors’ car. 13. The applicant has had no news of Mr Rustam Kagirov since his abduction. (b) Information submitted by the Government 14. The Government did not contest the basis of the applicant’s account concerning the circumstances of the abduction. At the same time they pointed out that the abduction of Mr Rustam Kagirov had taken place during “peacetime” in the absence of curfew and that unidentified armed culprits driving a civilian vehicle had been responsible for the incident. They stressed that in his initial complaints of the abduction lodged with the authorities between 18 and 21 May 2009 the applicant was not consistent in the description of its circumstances by submitting that the abduction had taken place from home, then that it had taken place from the street and then that Mr Rustam Kagirov had gone out and had not returned. They further stated that the applicant’s allegation of the increased security measures and presence of additional roadblocks on the motorway on the date of the abduction was based only on his own statement and that of Mr Kh.Kh. and that it was not unsubstantiated by any other evidence such as media reports or official announcements of enhanced security measures. 15. The Government were invited to provide an entire copy of the case file opened into the abduction of Mr Rustam Kagirov. In response to the Court’s enquiry of 9 July 2009 they provided copies of partial contents of case file no. 74024 reflecting “only the period of investigation between 18 May and 7 December 2009”. In reply to the second request for the entire contents of the case file of 19 September 2013, the Government furnished a copy of the contents reflecting “the period of the investigation after December 2009” on 1133 pages. The relevant information can be summarised as follows. 16. On 18 May 2009 the applicant complained of Mr Rustam Kagirov’s abduction to the Achkhoy-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office (the district prosecutor’s office) stating, amongst other things, the following: “At about 6 p.m. on 17 May 2009 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms stormed into our house. Threatening us with firearms, they had taken away my brother, Rustam Kagirov ... These men did not introduce themselves and behaved rudely. They forced my brother into a black Priora model vehicle with registration number 720 and drove away with him. His whereabouts remain unknown to us ...” 17. On 19 May 2009 the applicant’s other brother, Mr Baudin Kagirov, complained of the abduction to the Chechnya Prosecutor. He provided detailed description of the circumstances of the abduction similar to the applicant’s submission to the Court. In addition, he provided the investigators with the registration number of the abductors’ vehicle and the address of its official owner. He did not mention the abductors’ alleged passage through the roadblock. 18. On 20 May 2009 the applicant complained to the Achkhoy-Martan District Department of the Interior (the ROVD) of Mr Rustam Kagirov’s disappearance stating, amongst other things, the following: “I request that measures be taken to establish the whereabouts of my brother Rustam Kagirov, who on 17 May 2009 left home [situated] next to Zakan-Yurt administration and did not return ...” 19. On the same date, 20 May 2009, a group of the ROVD police officers arrived at the applicant’s house and questioned the applicant and his relatives (see paragraphs 59-61 below). 20. On the same date, 20 May 2009, the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 21. On 19 June 2009 the Achkhoy-Martan Inter-District Investigations Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic (the investigations department) opened an investigation into the abduction of Mr Rustam Kagirov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case was given the number 74024. 22. On 6 July 2009 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned again. The applicant reiterated his previously given statement (see paragraph 59 below). 23. On 7 July 2009 in reply to the applicant’s detailed request on the progress of the investigation, the investigators informed him that they had neither yet interviewed the traffic policemen from the Zakan-Yurt roadblock nor identified the owner of the abductors’ vehicle. 24. On 31 July 2009 the investigators requested the Chechnya traffic police to provide information on the owner of the Priora vehicle and the identities of the traffic police officers who had manned roadblocks on the Kavkaz (Rostov-Baku) motorway on the date of the abduction: “... you are requested to provide information concerning the traffic policemen who were on-duty on the motorway Rostov-Baku between Zakan-Yurt and Grozny at about 6 p.m. on 17 May 2009; ... information concerning the owner of the vehicle with registration number A720 AT 95/RUS ...” 25. On an unspecified date in August 2009 the Chechnya traffic police replied to the investigators that on the date of the abduction the traffic policemen had only manned the permanent checkpoint at the entrance to Grozny: “... On 17 May 2009, at about 6 p.m., on the motorway Kavkaz between Zakan-Yurt and Grozny, no roadblocks of the traffic police were put in place, save for the regular stationary checkpoint of the traffic police “Chernorechye” at the crossroads of the motorway Kavkaz and the entrance to Grozny ...” The letter further provided information concerning the owner of the Priora car, Mr S.Kh. and his address. 26. On 27 August 2009, the investigators again examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 27. On 30 August 2009 the deputy head of the Chechnya Investigations Department instructed the investigators to take a number of necessary steps, including the following: “... 4. To identify and establish the whereabouts and question the traffic police officers who had been on-duty at about 6 p.m. on 17 May 2009 at the roadblock on the Rostov-Baku motorway between Zakan-Yurt and Grozny and find out whether they had stopped black Priora car with registration number A 720 AT 95; to show them for identification Rustam Kagirov’s photograph and establish who had been in the vehicle, how they had been dressed, whether they had been armed and whether they had shown service identification documents, and if so, to which power structure they had belonged; ... 9. To take steps to establish whether on 17 May 2009 a special operation was carried out in Zakan-Yurt to detain Rustam Kagirov and if so, to take all measures to identify the servicemen who had been in charge of the operation and who had detained Rustam Kagirov; 10. To take all possible measures to verify whether Rustam Kagirov was detained by servicemen from the Shatoy ROVD and taken to their premises ...” 28. On 12 November 2009 the investigators requested that the ROVD identified the police officers who had manned the Rostov-Baku motorway on 17 May 2009. They also requested that the police verified whether a Priora vehicle, with registration number A 720 T 95 RUS, was registered as belonging to local law enforcement bodies, including the police and the Federal Security Service. From the documents submitted it follows that no reply was given to this request. 29. On 17 November 2009 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior informed the investigators that they had compiled photo fit pictures of the three perpetrators of Mr Rustam Kagirov’s abduction. 30. On 18 November 2009 the investigators requested that the ROVD put up copies of the photo fits in public places. 31. Between July and November 2009 the investigators requested a number of State authorities and detention facilities to inform them whether they had arrested or detained Mr Rustam Kagirov. No information in the positive was received. 32. According to an information statement issued by the ROVD on an unspecified date in 2009, Mr Rustam Kagirov had participated in illegal armed groups together with another individual, Mr R.B., which was proven by a photograph of those two men together. The document also stated that “according to recent operational information, at present, having joined an illegal armed group led by Mr I.A., he [Mr Rustam Kagirov] is [hiding] in the mountains.” The sources of that information were not specified. 33. On 19 November 2009 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It is unclear whether the applicant was informed thereof. 34. On 23 November 2009 the head of the investigations department ordered that the investigation was resumed and a number of steps were taken. In particular, his written instructions contained the following orders: “... 3. To question the applicant and find out the reasons why in his complaint of the abduction of 18 May 2009 to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office he stated that Rustam Kagirov had been abducted from home whereas in the complaint lodged with the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD of 20 May 2009 he stated that Rustam Kagirov had been abducted from the street ...... ... to question ROVD officers concerning the source of the information of Rustam Kagirov’s alleged membership in illegal armed groups; ... to examine the Priora vehicle with registration number A 720 T 95 and question its owner Mr M.T. in order to clarify whether he was implicated in the abduction; ... 12. To verify the information concerning Rustam Kagirov’s apprehension by the policemen from the Shatoy district department of the interior and his subsequent detention on the premises of that police station. To question the employees of its temporary detention centre who were on-duty between 17 and 20 May 2009 and examine the centre’s registration log of detainees ... The above investigative steps are to be taken by 30 November 2009 ...” 35. On 7 December 2009 the investigation was resumed. 36. On 28 December 2009, the investigators examined Mr M.T.’s Priora car. No evidence was collected. 37. On 30 December 2009 the investigators issued a decision concerning the seizure of the detainees’ registration log of the Shatoy ROVD owing to “the information concerning the involvement of its employees in Mr Rustam Kagirov’s abduction and his detention on the ROVD premises...” 38. On 30 December 2009 the Shatoy ROVD informed the investigators that their police station did not have either a temporary detention unit or any other types of detention cells. 39. On the same date, 30 December 2009, the investigators examined the “registration log of persons taken to the temporary detention unit of the Shatoy ROVD (путевой журнал конвоирования задержанных лиц ИВС) between 3 May 2008 and 30 December 2009”. Mr Rustam Kagirov’s name was not indicated therein. 40. On 11 January 2010 the ROVD informed the investigators that Mr Rustam Kagirov had participated in the illegal armed group of Mr I.Us. and that as a result of operational search measures it was established that he had not been taken to or detained in Shatoy ROVD. 41. On 11 January 2010 the investigation was again suspended and the applicant was informed thereof. 42. On 5 February 2010 the deputy head of the Chechnya Investigations Department ordered that the investigation be resumed for the investigators’ failure to take necessary steps. He ordered that, amongst others, the following steps were taken: “... establishing the identity and the whereabouts of Mr Z.A. who had been sentenced by the Achkhoy-Martan district court to imprisonment and was serving the sentence and question him about the circumstances of his encounter with Rustam Kagirov [in the mountains] ...” 43. On 5 February 2010 the investigation was resumed. 44. On 9 February 2010 the Chechnya Department of the Federal Security Service informed the investigators that on 13 November 2009 as a result of a special operation, the illegal armed group of Mr I.Us. had been eliminated by direct hit of a high precision missile. The fragments of up to nine bodies found at the place of the impact were not susceptible to identification other than by the comparative analysis of the suspects’ DNA and that of their relatives. 45. On 16 February 2010 Mr Z.A. was questioned (see paragraph 72 below) and participated in the photo-identification of Mr Rustam Kagirov. He did not identify Mr Rustam Kagirov as a member of the illegal armed group. 46. On 9 March 2010 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was informed thereof. 47. On 16 March 2010 the investigation was resumed. 48. On 16 April 2010 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof. 49. On an unspecified date in April or May 2010 the investigation was resumed. 50. On 25 May 2010 the investigators decided to take the blood sample of the applicant’s mother Ms Z.K. for comparative examination of her DNA with the fragments of the bodies found at the place of the elimination of the illegal armed group of Mr I.Us. (see paragraph 44 above). 51. On 26 May 2010 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was informed thereof. 52. On 3 November 2010 the experts of the Forensics Bureau of the Stavropol Region issued their evaluation report for the investigators. According to their findings, the mother of Mr Rustam Kagirov Ms Z.K. was not related to the fragments of the bod(y)ies found (see paragraphs 44 and 50 above). 53. On various dates between May and November 2010 the investigators requested information concerning the phone calls made from Mr Rustam Kagirov’s mobile telephone and their locations. From the documents submitted it follows that this information did not yield tangible results. 54. On 20 February 2013 the investigation was resumed. 55. On 20 February 2013 Ms Z.K. was informed of the results of the expert evaluation. 56. On 20 February 2013 the investigators forwarded information requests to various law enforcement and military agencies asking to inform whether any special operations had been carried out by their agents against Mr Rustam Kagirov in May 2009 in Zakan-Yurt. No replies were given to these requests. 57. On 21 February 2013 the investigation was again suspended. The applicant was informed thereof. 58. The investigation in case no. 74024 is still pending. 59. On 20 May 2009 the policemen questioned the applicant and Mr Kh.Kh. whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the applicant’s account submitted to the Court. Neither the applicant nor Mr Kh.Kh. informed the investigators about the abductors’ unimpeded passage through the police roadblock on the motorway. Both witnesses provided detailed description of the abductors’ appearance and the registration number of their vehicle. 60. On 20 May 2009 the investigators also questioned the applicant’s other brother, Mr Adam Kagirov, whose statement was similar to that of the applicant. However, the witness added that the abductors’ car had been stopped by the police at the roadblock and that the policemen had not checked the abductors’ identity documents and had let the vehicle pass as the latter told them that they had been police officers. 61. On the same date, 20 May 2009, the policemen also questioned two of the applicant’s relatives, Ms Z.Kh. and Ms Z.K., whose statements were similar to that of the applicant provided on 20 May 2009. 62. On 22 May 2009 the police again questioned Mr Kh.Kh. whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the applicant’s account submitted to the Court. In addition, the witness stated that he and the applicant had arrived at the roadblock during their pursuit of the abductors and had asked the police officers why the latter had not stopped the abductors’ car. The officers had explained that the persons in that vehicle had been officers of a law enforcement agency in a rush and that they had not been able to tell them to which law enforcement agency the persons had belonged. According to the officers, they had not had enough time to see who had been in the vehicle. The witness provided a detailed description of physical appearance of two of the abductors. 63. On the same date, 22 May 2009, the police again questioned the applicant’s brothers, Mr Adam Kagirov and then Mr Baudin Kagirov, whose statements were similar to the applicant’s account submitted to the Court. In addition, Mr Baudin Kagirov stated that after his brother’s abduction he had obtained access to the traffic police database and found out that registration number A 720 AT 95 of the abductors’ vehicle belonged to Mr S. Kh. The witness provided the investigators with the address of Mr S. Kh. 64. On 6 July 2009 the investigators again questioned Mr Kh.Kh. who reiterated his previously given statements. 65. On various dates between August and November 2009 the investigators again questioned the applicant, Mr Kh.Kh., Mr Adam Kagirov and Mr Baudin Kagirov all of whom reiterated their previously given statements (see paragraphs 59 and 62 above) . 66. Between July and November 2009 the investigators questioned fifteen of Mr Rustam Kagirov’s neighbours and relatives, as well as owners of the Priora vehicle. The witnesses had not witnessed the abduction but had learnt of it from the applicant and his brothers. In addition, when questioned, Mr S.Kh., stated that in 2006 he had sold a Priora vehicle with the registration number A 720 AT 95 to Mr M.T. When questioned on 12 September 2009 Mr M.T. confirmed the vehicle’s purchase in 2006 but denied having any knowledge of the abduction. 67. On various dates in December 2009 the investigators questioned several of Mr Rustam Kagirov’s former classmates and employees of the local administration next to which the abduction took place. None of the questioned persons either witnessed the abduction or had any pertinent information about it. 68. On 28 December 2009 the investigators again questioned Mr M.T. who reiterated his previously given statement concerning the Priora vehicle and its registration number and stressed that he did not know anyone from either Zakan-Yurt or the Achkhoy-Martan district. 69. On 30 December 2009 the investigators questioned officers of the Shatoy ROVD Mr U.A. and Mr A.I. both of whom stated that their ROVD did not have detention cells owing to repair works in the building and that the detainees were taken to the temporary detention facility of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior. They did not recall seeing Mr Rustam Kagirov on the premises of their ROVD. 70. On 31 December 2009 the investigators again questioned the applicant who reiterated his previously given statements and added that the difference in the abduction complaints lodged with the prosecutor’s office and the police was due to the fact that the complaint to the former had been typed by an employee of that office and that he had only signed the document without reading its contents in detail. The applicant stressed that his brother had been abducted next to the administration building which was situated close to his house. 71. On 31 December 2009 the investigators questioned the operational search officer from the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD Mr Z.B. who stated he had been responsible for the search for Mr Rustam Kagirov. He further stated that one of the detainees taken to their police station in October 2009, Mr Z.A., had told him that he had seen Mr Rustam Kagirov next to Roshni‑Chu in the Urus-Martan district in the illegal armed group of Mr I.Us. The officer further stated that according to operational information, the abduction of Mr Rustam Kagirov had been staged by his relatives to avoid his prosecution for the membership in illegal armed groups. According to the officer, Mr Z.A. was serving a prison sentence. 72. On 16 February 2010 the investigators questioned Mr Z.A. about his membership in the illegal armed group of Mr I.Us. The witness stated that he had spent fourteen days in the autumn of 2009 with the group. He did not see Mr Rustam Kagirov there. 73. On 3 March 2010 the investigators again questioned the operational search officer from the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD Mr Z.B. who stated that he had received information concerning Mr Z.A.’s meeting with Mr Rustam Kagirov in the illegal armed group (see paragraph 71 above) from the head of criminal police division of the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD officer Mr A.M. 74. On 3 March 2010 the investigators questioned Mr A.M. who stated that after his arrest Mr Z.A. had identified Mr Rustam Kagirov by photograph as one of the members of the illegal armed group whom he had met in the autumn of 2009. 75. On various dates in March and April 2010 the investigators questioned forty-four persons all of whom stated that at some point in the past they had either sold or purchased a Priora vehicle. None of them had any information pertaining to the abduction. 76. For the relevant domestic law and practice as well as international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia see Turluyeva v. Russia, no. 63638/09, §§ 56-74, 20 June 2013.

{'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, who was born in 1960 and lives in Paris, is a lawyer (avocat) and member of the Paris Bar. 10. On 19 October 1995 Mr Bernard Borrel, a judge who had been seconded by France for the year before as a technical adviser to the Djiboutian Minister of Justice, in the context of cooperation agreements between the two States, was found dead 80 kilometres from the city of Djibouti. His half-naked and partially burnt body was lying some 20 metres below a remote road. The investigation by the Djibouti gendarmerie in the days that followed concluded that he had committed suicide by self-immolation. 11. On 7 December 1995 a judicial investigation was opened at the Toulouse tribunal de grande instance to determine the cause of death. Bernard Borrel’s body, which was repatriated and interred in Toulouse, underwent an autopsy on 15 February 1996. The report concluded that the death was not suspicious, although the body’s state of decomposition did not permit a precise cause to be established. 12. On 3 March 1997 Mrs Elisabeth Borrel, the widow of Bernard Borrel and also a judge, disputing the finding of suicide, filed a complaint as a civil party, in her own name and on behalf of her two minor children, against a person or persons unknown for premeditated murder. She appointed the applicant, Mr Morice, to represent her in the proceedings. 13. On 8 and 23 April 1997 two judicial investigations were opened in respect of premeditated murder committed by a person or persons unknown. 14. In a decision of 30 April 1997, the judicial investigation into the cause of death and the two investigations in respect of premeditated murder were joined. 15. On 29 October 1997 the Court of Cassation accepted a request by the applicant to withdraw the case from the Toulouse court and it was transferred to the tribunal de grande instance of Paris, where it was assigned on 12 October 1997 to Ms M., assisted from 7 January 1998 by Mr L.L., both investigating judges, who were to conduct the judicial investigation jointly. 16. On 19 November 1999 a lawyer at the Brussels Bar informed the police that A., a former senior officer and member of the Djiboutian Presidential Guard, who had found asylum in Belgium, had certain revelations to make concerning Judge Borrel. The information thus disclosed was transmitted to the French authorities via Interpol. A judgment of the Versailles Court of Appeal of 28 May 2009 (see paragraph 18 below) records the following sequence of events: Judges M. and L.L. did not reply, owing to the fact that the witness wished to remain anonymous, and the information was not followed up; the witness’s Belgian lawyer thus contacted the applicant, who arranged for the witness to be interviewed by journalists from the daily newspaper Le Figaro and the French TV channel TF1, at the end of December 1999; lastly, it was as a result of the publication and broadcasting of that interview in early January 2000 that Judges M. and L.L. decided to go to Belgium to assist the Belgian investigator in taking evidence from the witness. 17. On 31 January 2000 Judges M. and L.L. interviewed the witness in Brussels. It was subsequently alleged by A. that he had been pressurised and intimidated by Judge M. to withdraw his testimony, those complaints being expressly made in a letter of 2 February 2000 from his lawyer to the Crown Prosecutor. In addition, the witness accused the public prosecutor of Djibouti of having threatened him to make him recant his statement, and alleged that the head of the Djibouti secret services had ordered the head of the Presidential Guard, Captain I., to draft a statement discrediting him. Captain I. confirmed A’s accusations concerning him. 18. Proceedings were brought in France against the public prosecutor of Djibouti and the head of the country’s secret services for the procuring of false evidence, and Judge Borrel’s widow and son, the witness A., Captain I., and a French lawyer, A.M., who was implicated, intervened as civil parties. Evidence was taken from Judge M. in her capacity as witness. The public prosecutor and the head of the secret services of Djibouti were sentenced, respectively, to eighteen and twelve months’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay damages to the civil parties, in a judgment of the Versailles Criminal Court of 27 March 2008, before being acquitted by the Versailles Court of Appeal on 28 May 2009. 19. On 2 February 2000, in the context of the judicial investigation in respect of premeditated murder, three professional unions of judges and prosecutors, namely the Syndicat de la magistrature, the Association professionnelle des magistrats and the Union syndicale des magistrats, applied to be joined to the proceedings as civil parties. 20. On 16 March 2000 the applicant, acting on behalf of Mrs Borrel, requested, firstly, that evidence be taken from the witness, A., in Belgium, and, secondly, that a visit to the scene of the crime in Djibouti, in the presence of the civil parties, be organised. 21. In a decision of 17 March 2000, the investigating judges M. and L.L. accepted the request concerning A., finding that a new interview was absolutely necessary. They refused, however, to agree to a site visit, as such a visit had already been made twice, once in 1999 and again one week before the decision in question, as they did not see “how a visit to the site in the presence of the civil party would, at th[at] stage of the proceedings, be helpful for the discovery of the truth”. They added that during their visit to Djibouti a few days before, they had been accompanied by two experts, including the director of the Paris Institute of Forensic Medicine, adding that the scene had been filmed and photographed on that occasion. 22. The applicant and another lawyer appealed against that decision. They filed their pleadings with the Indictments Division, as did the lawyer acting for the Syndicat de la magistrature, arguing that the last site visit in the presence of an expert could be regarded as a reconstruction from which the civil parties had been excluded, and that the sole aim of the investigation was to demonstrate that the victim had committed suicide. They also requested that the Indictments Division take over the case from the investigating judges and continue the investigation itself. 23. In a judgment of 21 June 2000, the Indictments Division of the Paris Court of Appeal found that after two site visits in the absence of the civil parties, one of which closely resembled a reconstruction, the need to organise an on-site reconstruction in the presence of the civil parties so that they could exercise their rights was indispensable for the discovery of the truth. Accordingly, it set aside the decision of Judges M. and L.L. on that point. In addition, it withdrew the case from them and appointed a new investigating judge, Judge P., to continue the investigation. 24. On 19 June 2007 the Paris public prosecutor, further to the request of the investigating judge then handling the case, on the basis of Article 11, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued a statement to clarify publicly that “whilst suicide had once been the preferred theory, the evidence gathered, especially since 2002, now point[ed] to a criminal act”, adding that the experts’ reports had determined that “Bernard Borrel was lying on the ground when liquids were poured over him in a random manner”. 25. The proceedings are currently still pending. 26. The Minister of Justice, by acts of 29 June and 16 October 2000, referred to the National Legal Service Commission (Conseil supérieur de la magistrature – “the CSM”), in its capacity as a disciplinary board for judges, certain shortcomings attributable to Judge M. in the judicial investigation into the “Scientology” case for which she was responsible and in which the applicant also represented the civil parties. Judge M. was criticised for not devoting the necessary care and attention to the case file, leaving it practically untouched for five years; for having recourse to a friendly-settlement procedure which went beyond the jurisdiction of an investigating judge; and for not making copies of all the documents in the case file, thus making it impossible to reconstruct the file after its partial disappearance from her chambers. Judge M. requested that the referral to the CSM be declared null and void, particularly on account of the fact that it had been made public by the director of the Minister’s private office at a press conference, even before she had been personally notified of the decision. In parallel, on 18 October 2000, the Indictments Division of the Paris Court of Appeal upheld a request by the applicant for the withdrawal of the “Scientology” case from Judge M. 27. On 4 July 2000, at a general meeting of judges of the Paris tribunal de grande instance, the issue of the disciplinary proceedings against Judge M. was raised, in particular because they had been announced in the press whereas the judge concerned had not been officially informed and the president of that court had not yet been notified. During that meeting a judge, J.M., stated as follows: “We are not prohibited, as grassroots judges, from saying that we stand by Judge [M.]. It is not forbidden to say that Judge [M.] has our support and trust.” 28. The general meeting drafted the following motion, which was adopted unanimously: “The general meeting of judges of the Paris tribunal de grande instance held on 4 July 2000, without disputing the authority conferred on the Minister of Justice to take disciplinary proceedings in the conditions prescribed by law, is surprised to learn from the press that such proceedings have been initiated against Judge [M.], investigating judge in Paris, whereas to date neither the judge herself nor her judicial hierarchy have been officially informed thereof.” 29. In the context of a magazine interview published in July-August 2000, the chair of the Syndicat de la magistrature, a civil party in the Borrel case, criticised the “lack of impartiality on the part of Judge M. in the Borrel and [L.] cases”, adding that the judges who had signed the motion “could not have been unaware that in two sensitive cases, the Borrel case and the [L.] case, her impartiality was seriously called into question”. 30. In a judgment of 5 January 2000, the Paris tribunal de grande instance, in a case brought by the applicant as counsel acting for two civil parties, found the State liable for gross negligence on the part of the courts service on account of the disappearance of the so-called “Scientology” file from the office of Judge M. It awarded damages to the complainants. 31. On 13 December 2001 the CSM dismissed a plea of nullity from Judge M. and, on the merits, while reproaching her for a certain lack of rigour or a failure to keep track of the case sufficiently, did not impose any disciplinary penalty on her. 32. On 1 August 2000 Judge P., who had been appointed to replace Judges M. and L.L., drafted a report in which he noted the following chain of events. In response to the applicant’s request concerning the video‑recording made in Djibouti in March 2000 and cited by Judges M. and L.L. in their decision of 17 March 2000, Judge P. replied that it was not in the judicial investigation file and was not registered as an exhibit; on the same day, Judge P. asked Judge M. whether she still had the video-cassette; Judge M. promptly gave him a closed and undated envelope with her name on, showing no sign of having been placed under seal, bearing the address of Judge M. as addressee and that of the public prosecutor of Djibouti as sender; the envelope contained a video-cassette and a handwritten card with the letter head of the public prosecutor of Djibouti, these items then being taken by Judge P. and placed under seal. The public prosecutor’s card addressed to Judge M. read as follows (translated from French). “Hi Marie-Paule, As agreed, I am sending you the video-cassette of the Goubet site visit. I hope the picture will be clear enough. I watched the show Sans aucun doute [Without any doubt] on TF1. I noticed once again how Mrs Borrel and her lawyers were determined to carry on orchestrating their manipulation. I’ll call you soon. Say hello to Roger if he’s back, and also to J.C. [D.]. Speak to you soon. Best wishes, DJAMA.” 33. On 6 September 2000 the applicant and another lawyer, Mr L. de Caunes, wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice to complain of the facts recorded in the report of the investigating judge P. dated 1 August 2000, on account of the “conduct of Judges [M.] and [L.L.], [which was] completely at odds with the principles of impartiality and fairness”. They asked for an “investigation to be carried out by the General Inspectorate of Judicial Services into the numerous shortcomings which [had] been brought to light in the course of the judicial investigation”. They stated that the form and substance of the card addressed by the public prosecutor of Djibouti to Judge M. revealed a complicit intimacy that was surprising and regrettable, as the public prosecutor was directly subordinate to the executive, of which the head was “suspected very openly and very seriously of being the instigator of Bernard Borrel’s murder”. 34. Furthermore, extracts from that letter were included, together with statements made by the applicant to the journalist, in an article in the newspaper Le Monde published on 7 September and dated Friday 8 September 2000. The article read as follows. “THE LAWYERS acting for the widow of Judge Bernard Borrel, who was found dead in Djibouti in 1995 in mysterious circumstances, vigorously criticised Judge [M.], from whom the case was withdrawn last spring, in a letter to the Minister of Justice on Wednesday 6 September. The judge is accused by Olivier Morice and Laurent de Caunes of ‘conduct which is completely at odds with the principles of impartiality and fairness’, apparently having failed to register an item for the case file and to transmit it to her successor. The two lawyers, who had not been authorised to go to Djibouti in March for a second site visit, asked on 1 August to consult the video-recording made on that occasion. Judge [P.], who has been handling the case since its withdrawal from [Judges M. and L.L.] on 21 June, told them that the cassette was not in the case file and was not ‘registered in the file as an exhibit’. The judge immediately called his colleague, who gave him the cassette later that day. ‘Judges [M.] and [L.L.] had been sitting on the cassette’, protests Olivier Morice, ‘and had forgotten to place it under seal, for over a month after the case was withdrawn from them’. To make matters worse, in the envelope Judge [P.] found a handwritten and rather friendly note from Djama [S.], the public prosecutor of Djibouti. ‘Hi Marie-Paule, as agreed I am sending you the video-cassette of the Goubet site visit’ the note reads. ‘I hope the picture will be clear enough. I watched the show Sans aucun doute (Without any doubt) on TF1. I noticed once again how Mrs Borrel and her lawyers were determined to carry on orchestrating their manipulation. I’ll call you soon. Say hello to Roger [L.L.] if he’s back, and also to J.-C. [D.] [deputy public prosecutor in Paris]. Speak to you soon. Best wishes, Djama.’ Mrs Borrel’s lawyers are obviously furious. ‘This letter shows the extent of the connivance between the Djibouti public prosecutor and the French judges’, exclaims Mr Morice, ‘and one cannot but find it outrageous’. They have asked Elisabeth Guigou for an investigation by the General Inspectorate of Judicial Services. The Minister of Justice had not received their letter on Thursday 7 September. Judge [M.] already has disciplinary proceedings pending against her before the National Legal Service Commission (CSM), in particular for the disappearance of documents from the investigation file in the Scientology case (see Le Monde of 3 July).” 35. Judges M. and L.L. filed a criminal complaint as civil parties against a person or persons unknown for false accusations. On 26 September 2000 the Paris public prosecutor’s office opened a judicial investigation for false accusations. On 5 November 2000 the Court of Cassation appointed an investigating judge in Lille, who, on 15 May 2006, made a discontinuance order, which was upheld by the Investigation Division of the Douai Court of Appeal on 19 June 2007. 36. In addition, on 12 and 15 October 2000 Judges M. and L.L. filed a criminal complaint as civil parties against the publication director of Le Monde, the journalist who had written the article and the applicant, accusing them of public defamation of a civil servant. 37. In an order of 2 October 2001, an investigating judge at the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance committed the applicant and the two other defendants to stand trial before the Criminal Court on account of the following passages from the impugned article. “The judge [M.] is accused by Olivier Morice and Laurent de Caunes of ‘conduct which is completely at odds with the principles of impartiality and fairness’, apparently having failed to register an item for the case file and to transmit it to her successor.” “‘Judges [M.] and [L.L.] had been sitting on the cassette’, protests Olivier Morice, ‘and had forgotten to place it under seal, for over a month after the case was withdrawn from them’.” “To make matters worse, in the envelope Judge [P.] found a handwritten and rather friendly note.” “Mrs Borrel’s lawyers are obviously furious. ‘This letter shows the extent of the connivance between the Djibouti public prosecutor and the French judges’, exclaims Mr Morice, ‘and one cannot but find it outrageous’.” 38. In a judgment of 4 June 2002, the Nanterre Criminal Court dismissed the pleas of nullity which had been raised by the defendants, in particular on the basis of the immunity provided for by section 41 of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881 on judicial proceedings and pleadings filed in court, on account of the fact that the article had merely reiterated the content of the letter to the Minister of Justice. The court took the view, on that point, that the letter in question was not an act of referral to the CSM and that its content had to be regarded as purely informative, with the result that it was not covered by immunity. 39. The court then observed that the defamatory nature of the comments had not been “meaningfully disputed” and that the applicant stood by the content of his allegations, which he considered to be well founded. Turning then to each of the impugned comments, to ascertain whether the charge of defamation was made out, and to assess the significance and seriousness thereof, the court first noted that “the accusation of impartiality [sic] and unfairness proffered against a judge clearly constitute[d] a particularly defamatory allegation, because it [was] tantamount to calling into question her qualities, her moral and professional rigour, and ultimately her capacity to discharge her duties as a judge”. It further took the view that the comments on the failure to forward the video-cassette were also defamatory as they suggested that there had at least been some negligence or a form of obstruction. As to the term “connivance”, the court found that the use of that word clearly and directly suggested that the judges had been collaborating with an official of a foreign country to act in a biased and unfair manner, this being exacerbated by the implication in the article that there was serious evidence of such conduct, because the Minister of Justice had been requested to initiate an investigation. 40. As to the applicant’s guilt, the court found that it was, in any event, established that the journalist had become privy to the letter sent to the Minister of Justice through his own sources and that he had sought confirmation and comments from the applicant, with whom he had had a telephone conversation. As the applicant had been aware that his statements to the journalist would be made public, the court took the view that he was therefore guilty of complicity in public defamation, unless the court were to accept his offer to prove the veracity of the allegations or his defence of good faith. However, the court dismissed the applicant’s various offers to bring evidence, pointing out that in order to be accepted “the evidence to be adduced must be flawless and complete and relate directly to all the allegations found to be defamatory”. As to the applicant’s good faith, it found that “the highly virulent attacks on the professional and moral integrity of the investigating judges ... clearly overstepped the right of legitimately permissible free criticism” and that the profound disagreements between Mrs Borrel’s lawyers and the investigating judges could not justify a total lack of prudence in their remarks. 41. As regards the sanction, the court expressly took into account the applicant’s status as a lawyer and the fact that he could therefore not have been “unaware of the significance and seriousness of totally imprudent comments”, finding it appropriate that “the sanction for such criminal misconduct had to be a fine of a sufficiently high amount”. It sentenced him to a fine of 4,000 euros (EUR), and ordered him to pay, jointly with the other defendants, EUR 7,500 in damages to each of the two judges in question, together with EUR 3,000 in costs. It also ordered the insertion of a notice in the newspaper Le Monde, of which the cost was to be shared between the defendants. An appeal was lodged against the judgment by the applicant, his co-defendants, the two judges with civil-party status and the public prosecutor. 42. In a judgment of 28 May 2003, the Versailles Court of Appeal found that the summonses issued on the basis of L.L.’s complaint were null and void and that his action was time-barred, and it acquitted the three defendants under that head. It further upheld the convictions of the three defendants in respect of Judge M.’s complaint, together with the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant and the damages awarded to the judge, to whom it also awarded EUR 5,000 in court costs, in addition to the order to publish a notice in the daily newspaper Le Monde. Both the applicant and Judge L.L. appealed on points of law. 43. On 12 October 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in its entirety and remitted the case to the Rouen Court of Appeal. 44. On 25 April 2005 the Rouen Court of Appeal took note of the fact that the three defendants waived any claim of nullity in respect of the summonses issued on the basis of Judge L.L.’s complaint and it adjourned the proceedings on the merits. 45. On 8 June 2005 the President of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed applications from the three defendants and the civil parties for the immediate examination of their appeals on points of law. 46. In a judgment of 16 July 2008, after a number of adjournments and the holding of a hearing on 30 April 2008, the Rouen Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal by the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance of the immunity objection, and also upheld the defendants’ convictions for complicity in the public defamation of civil servants in the applicant’s case. It ordered the applicant to pay a fine of EUR 4,000 and upheld the award of EUR 7,500 in damages to each of the judges, to be paid by the defendants jointly, together with the order to publish a notice in the daily newspaper Le Monde. As regards costs, it ordered the three defendants to pay EUR 4,000 to Judge L.L. and the applicant alone to pay EUR 1,000 to Judge M. 47. In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal firstly took the view that to say that in handling a case an investigating judge had shown “conduct which [was] completely at odds with the principles of impartiality and fairness”, or in other words conduct incompatible with professional ethics and her judicial oath, was a particularly defamatory accusation as it was tantamount to accusing her of lacking integrity and of deliberately failing in her duties as a judge, thus questioning her capacity to discharge those duties. It further found that the applicant’s comments concerning the delay in forwarding the video-cassette amounted to accusing the judges of negligence in the handling of the case, thereby discrediting the professional competence of the judges and implying that the latter had deliberately kept hold of the cassette after the case was withdrawn from them, with the intention, at least, of causing obstruction. Allegedly, it was only because the lawyers had raised the matter with Judge P., followed by that judge’s request to Judge M., that the item of evidence had finally been obtained on 1 August 2000. The Court of Appeal added that such assertions, attributing to those judges a deliberate failure to perform the duties inherent in their office and a lack of integrity in the fulfilment of their obligations, constituted factual accusations which impugned their honour and reputation. It found this to be all the more true as the applicant, referring to the handwritten card from the public prosecutor of Djibouti to Judge M., had emphasised this atmosphere of suspicion and the negligent conduct of the judges by stating that this document proved the extent of the “connivance” between them. The court noted, on that point, that the word “connivance” represented in itself a serious attack on the honour and reputation of Judge M. and the public prosecutor of Djibouti. It merely served to confirm the defamatory nature of the previous comments, especially as the article added that the applicant had asked the Minister of Justice for an inspection by the General Inspectorate of Judicial Services. 48. The Court of Appeal thus concluded that the comments were defamatory and that the veracity of the defamatory allegations had not been established. It took the view, on that point, that there was no evidence that Judge L.L. had been in possession of the video-cassette or that he had even been informed of its arrival, so he was not concerned by the delay in forwarding it; that the judgment of the Indictments Division of 21 June 2000, withdrawing the case from the two judges, merely expressed disapproval of the judges’ refusal to hold a reconstruction in the presence of the civil parties; that it had not been established that the video-cassette had reached Judge M. before the case was withdrawn from her or that it had been in her possession when the investigation was transferred to Judge P.; that there was nothing to suggest that Judge M. had acted with obstructive intent or that she had been unfair in her handling of the cassette; that the handwritten card addressed to Judge M. from the public prosecutor of Djibouti did not prove that there was any connivance between them, as friendly greetings and the use of the familiar form “tu” in contacts between legal officials did not necessarily reflect a complicit intimacy, and the possibility that they shared the same opinion did not prove any complicity or connivance on the part of the French judges such as to undermine the judicial investigation procedure, regardless of the conduct of the Djibouti public prosecutor in this case; that the letter from the lawyer representing witness A. addressed to the Crown Prosecutor in Belgium, complaining that Judge M. had put pressure on his client, was not sufficiently conclusive in itself to show that Judge M. had accepted the theory of suicide or that she was hindering the establishment of the truth, even though Judge M. had acknowledged that she had told the Belgian police that A. was an unreliable witness; and, lastly, that the numerous press articles carried no evidential weight as regards the conduct and attitude of the judges in their handling of the case. 49. As regards the applicant’s defence of good faith, the Court of Appeal to which the case had been remitted noted that he had referred to the duties that were inherent in his profession and the results obtained in the case since the withdrawal of the case from Judges M. and L.L., as shown by the public prosecutor’s press statement of 19 June 2007; he had further relied on the judgment of the Douai Court of Appeal, also of 19 June 2007, upholding the decision to discontinue the proceedings started by the judges’ complaint alleging false accusation and on the conviction of the Djibouti public prosecutor by the Criminal Court of Versailles on 27 March 2008 for procuring a person to give false evidence. 50. It observed that at the time the offence in question was committed, on 7 September 2000, the applicant had secured the withdrawal of the case from Judges M. and L.L. and that Judge P. had been in possession of the video-cassette since 1 August 2000. It took the view that the applicant had engaged in highly virulent attacks on the professional and moral integrity of the two judges, in comments that seriously questioned their impartiality and intellectual honesty, clearly overstepping the right to free criticism and no longer being of any procedural relevance. The Court of Appeal further found: that the decision in the applicant’s favour to discontinue the proceedings for false accusation initiated against him as a result of the judges’ complaint was not incompatible with his bad faith; that the excessive nature of the comments made by the applicant revealed the intensity of the conflict between him and the two judges, in particular Judge M., and were tantamount to an ex post facto settling of scores, as shown by the publication of the article on 7 September 2000, after the Indictments Division of the Paris Court of Appeal had received, on 5 September, the file in the “Scientology” case, in which Judge M. was suspected of being responsible for the disappearance of evidence; and that this showed, on the part of the applicant, personal animosity and an intention to discredit those judges, in particular Judge M., with whom he had been in conflict in various cases, thus ruling out any good faith on his part. 51. The applicant, his two co-defendants and Judge M. all lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment. In his pleadings, the applicant relied, as his first ground of appeal, on Article 10 of the Convention and the immunity provided for in section 41 of the Freedom of the Press Act, arguing that this provision sought to safeguard defence rights and protected lawyers in respect of any oral or written comments made in the context of any type of judicial proceedings, in particular of a disciplinary nature. As his second ground of appeal, he relied on Article 10 of the Convention, asserting that: the impugned comments concerned a case that had been receiving media coverage for some time, involving the suspicious circumstances in which a French judge seconded to Djibouti had been found dead “from suicide” and the questionable manner in which the judicial investigation had been conducted, with a clear bias against the civil party’s theory of premeditated murder; having regard to the importance of the subject of general interest in the context of which the comments had been made, the Court of Appeal was not entitled to find that he had overstepped the bounds of his freedom of expression; the Court of Appeal had not examined his good faith in the light of the comments that had been published in Le Monde, but in relation to the content of the letter to the Minister of Justice and it was not entitled to make any assessment concerning the judges’ conduct criticised therein; unless all lawyers were to be banned from speaking about pending cases, no personal animosity could be inferred from the mere fact that he had had a disagreement with one of the judges in the context of another set of proceedings; good faith was not subject to the current situation or to the fact that the issue had been “made good” by the withdrawal of the case from the judges, the lack of necessity of the comments not being incompatible with good faith; lastly, opinions expressed regarding the functioning of a fundamental institution of the State, as was the case regarding the handling of a criminal investigation, were not subject to a duty of prudence or limited to theoretical and abstract criticism, but could be personal where they had a sufficient factual basis. 52. The appeals were initially supposed to be heard by a reduced bench of Section I of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, as shown by the reporting judge’s report of 21 July 2009, the Court of Cassation’s online workflow for the case, and the three notices to parties issued on 15 September, and 14 and 27 October 2009, respectively, the last two of those documents having been sent after the date of the hearing. Consequently, Mr J.M. (see paragraph 27 above), who had become a judge at the Court of Cassation, assigned to the Criminal Division, and who was neither the Division President, nor the senior judge (doyen), nor the reporting judge, was not supposed to sit in that case. 53. In a judgment of 10 November 2009, the Court of Cassation, in a formation eventually consisting of ten judges, including Mr J.M., dismissed the appeals on points of law. As regards the grounds raised by the applicant, it found that the objection of jurisdictional immunity had been validly rejected, as the fact of making public the letter to the Minister of Justice did not constitute an act of referral to the CSM and was not part of any proceedings involving the exercise of defence rights before a court of law. As to the various arguments expounded under the applicant’s second ground of appeal, it took the view that the Court of Appeal had justified its decision, finding as follows: “[W]hile everyone has the right to freedom of expression and while the public has a legitimate interest in receiving information on criminal proceedings and on the functioning of the courts, the exercise of those freedoms carries with it duties and responsibilities and may be subject, as in the present case where the admissible limits of freedom of expression in criticising the action of judges have been overstepped, to such restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation and rights of others.”

{'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 1966 and lives in Tirana. 6. On 15 March 2008 a massive explosion occurred at a demilitarisation facility. The explosion claimed 26 lives. Two hundred and sixty-five other persons were either grievously or lightly wounded and a number of nearby buildings was heavily damaged. The demilitarisation process was carried out by a private commercial company, whose administrator the applicant was. 7. Following the explosion, the prosecutor started criminal proceedings against the applicant and 28 other persons. 8. On 17 March 2008 the applicant was remanded in custody. The District Court imposed no time-limits on the length of his detention. It appeared that he was suspected of having committed the criminal offences of murder in aggravating circumstances of more than two persons, destruction of property with explosives and breach of the rules on explosive, flammable or radioactive substances” contrary to Articles 79 (dh) and (ë), 152 and 282 of the Criminal Code. 9. On 13 March 2009 the prosecutor sent the case against the applicant and the other co-accused for examination to the Supreme Court, since one of the co-accused was a Member of Parliament (MP) as well as a Cabinet Minister. 10. On 22 May 2009 the Supreme Court decided to sever the proceedings against the MP, who also was a Cabinet Minister, from those against the applicant and the other co-accused. 11. On 11 June 2009 the case file against all co-accused, including the applicant, was registered with the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”) for examination. 12. On 19 July 2010 the applicant requested his release on the ground that the time-limits laid down by Articles 262 and 263 § 2 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) had expired. He argued that the prescribed time-limit started to run from 13 March 2009, the date on which the case was sent for examination to the Supreme Court. 13. On 23 July 2010 the Tirana District Court, in an interlocutory decision, rejected the request. It considered that, since the time-limit had started to run from 11 June 2009, the date on which the case file was registered at its registry and, since it had been stayed or prolonged on account of other interlocutory decisions, the time-limit had not yet expired. 14. On 6 August 2010 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. 15. On 3 November 2010 the Supreme Court quashed both decisions. It reasoned that Article 263 of the CCP provided for three time-limits: the first running from the date of an accused’s arrest to the date the file is transferred to the first-instance court (Article 263 § 1 of the CCP); the second running from then to the date of delivery of the decision by that court (Article 263 § 2 of the CCP); and the third running from then to the date of delivery of the appellate court’s decision (Article 263 § 3 of the CCP). According to the Supreme Court, in the applicant’s case, the first time-limit ended on 13 March 2009 when the case was sent to the Supreme Court (Article 263 § 1 of the CCP). On that date, the second time-limit before the first-instance court began to run (Article 263 § 2 of the CCP), since the Supreme Court was hearing the case as a first-instance court, one of the co-accused being an MP and a Cabinet Minister. Even though the proceedings against the MP were disjoined from those against the applicant and other co-accused, the period between 13 March 2009 and 11 June 2009, the date on which the case file against the applicant was registered with the District Court, should be taken into account for the purposes of the time-limit prescribed by Article 263 § 2 of the CCP. The Supreme Court indicated that the time-limit set out in Article 265 of the CPP should be deducted from the running of the time-limit prescribed by Article 263, if the stay was attributed, inter alia, to one of the co-accused or his lawyer. For the above reasons, the Supreme Court remitted the case for re-hearing by a different bench. Re-hearing proceedings 16. On 25 November 2010 the applicant’s lawyer, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision of 3 November 2010, requested, in writing, the applicant’s release. He argued that his lawful pre-trial detention period had been exceeded by 81 days. 17. On 26 November 2010 the District Court rejected the request arguing that it had not been submitted in writing in accordance with the law. The applicant appealed. 18. On 17 December 2010 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision and remitted the case for a re-hearing by a different bench. It found that the District Court had failed to carry out any of the tasks delegated by the Supreme Court’s decision of 3 November 2010. 19. The applicant appealed on the ground that the Court of Appeal should have examined the case itself instead of delaying the proceedings. 20. On 27 January 2011 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. 21. On 16 February 2011 the District Court discontinued the proceedings (pushimi i gjykimit) having regard to its decision of 7 February 2011 (see paragraph 25 below). 22. On 6 December 2010 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a second request for the applicant’s release on the ground that the time-limits laid down by Articles 262 and 263 § 2 (c) of the CCP had expired. 23. On the same day the District Court, in an interlocutory decision, rejected the request. It ruled that the time-limit had started to run from 11 June 2009, the date on which the case file was registered with it. It had been stayed for a period of 8 months and 12 days. Consequently, the District Court stated that there remained 2 months and 18 days of pre-trial detention until the expiry of the twelve-month time-limit as provided for by Article 263 § 2 (c). As regards the findings of the Supreme Court on 3 November 2010, the District Court stated that they were binding on the bench re-hearing the case and not on a court hearing a separate request for release. 24. On 7 February 2011 the applicant’s lawyer requested the applicant’s release on the ground that the time-limits laid down by Articles 262 and 263 § 2 (c) of the CCP had expired. 25. On the same day, in an interlocutory decision, the District Court ordered the applicant’s immediate release and his placement under house arrest in accordance with Article 266 § 1 of the CCP. No further reasons were given. The District Court relied on the Supreme Court decision of 2 February 2011 which had ordered the release of another co-accused who had been detained on the same day as the applicant, because the pre-trial detention time-limits, laid down in Article 263 § 2 (c), had expired (see paragraph 31 below). It accepted that the time-limit had started to run from 13 March 2009 and had exceeded the twelve-month period prescribed by law. The decision did not indicate the expiry date of the time-limit. The prosecutors appealed. 26. It would appear that the applicant was immediately placed under house arrest. 27. On 11 March 2011, following the prosecutor’s appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision. 28. On 9 May 2011, following the prosecutor’s appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decision. 29. On 24 November 2010 the District Court rejected a co-accused’s request for release on the ground that the time-limit for his detention “pending trial” had expired. In interpreting article 263 § 2 (c) of the CCP, the District Court argued that the time-limit had started to run from 11 June 2009, the date when the case file was registered with its registry. It further held that the Supreme Court’s decision of 3 November 2010 was not binding on that bench (see paragraph 15 above). 30. On 17 December 2010 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. 31. On 2 February 2011 the Supreme Court granted the co-accused’s appeal against the lower courts’ decisions. In interpreting Article 263 § 2 (c) of the CCP, the Supreme Court held that the period of detention “pending trial” had started to run on 13 March 2009, when the prosecutor had registered the case for examination with that court, which had examined it as a first-instance court in accordance with Article 75 (b) of the CCP. 32. The Supreme Court further referred to its decision of 3 November 2010, which had already directed the lower courts to calculate the period of detention “pending trial”, but had been disregarded by the District Court in that set of proceedings. The Supreme Court ordered the co-accused’s placement under house arrest. 33. On 12 March 2012, in a lengthy decision, the Tirana District Court found the applicant guilty of a “breach of the rules on explosive, flammable or radioactive substances” – contrary to Article 282 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. All parties appealed. 34. On 13 February 2013 the Tirana Court of Appeal upheld the decision. However, it reduced the applicant’s sentence by one third on account of the use of the summary procedure. 35. The applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court on 19 July 2013. 36. On 14 February 2013, in a letter about the execution of the sentence, the prosecutor’s office stated that the applicant’s pre-trial detention period from 17 March 2008 to 7 February 2011 was to be counted as a period of four years and four months’ imprisonment in accordance with the law. To that period, had to be added two years and six days, during which period the applicant had been under house arrest. In total, the applicant had served six years, four months and six days’ imprisonment. Consequently, the remaining sentence to be served by the applicant was three months and twenty-four days’ imprisonment. 37. On 18 March 2013 the District Court, having regard to the applicant’s good conduct, reduced his sentence by 70 days. 38. On 19 March 2013 the applicant was released from prison, having served the remainder 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’s identity has been the subject of controversy at the national level. In his submission to the Court he referred to himself as mentioned above (see paragraph 1), and indicated his year of birth as 1977. 6. During the proceedings in Slovakia described below, the applicant also was or has been referred to as Jurij Rybakovas, with the surname at birth of Vilcinskas, alias Kolja, born in 1976, and as Valerij Juriovi Grinevsky, a Lithuanian national. 7. On 31 December 2007 the applicant was arrested; on 4 January 2008 he was remanded in custody pending trial on charges of conspiracy and murder. 8. On 18 June 2009 the Bratislava I District Court (Okresný súd) authorised extension of his pre-trial detention until 28 August 2009. Following an appeal by the applicant the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 25 June 2009 upheld that decision. 9. On 11 August 2009 the applicant was indicted to stand trial; on 22 August 2009 the District Court dismissed his request for release. 10. The District Court heard the case on 27-29 October 2010 and a further hearing was scheduled for 12 to 14 January 2011. 11. On 27 July 2011 the applicant was acquitted; his acquittal was upheld on appeal on 18 April 2013. 12. On 16 September 2010, while he was still in detention, and acting through the intermediary of his lawyer, the applicant requested release. In support of the request, he argued that he was innocent and that his detention in the present trial was no more than an arbitrary means of retaining him in detention in the interest of another trial. The request was submitted by mail and was received at the District Court on 20 September 2010. 13. On 12 January 2011 the District Court heard the applicant in private, when he confirmed that he was seeking a response to the request for release he had made in September 2010. On the same day the District Court dismissed the request and the applicant stated on the record that he wished to appeal. 14. Through his lawyer, the applicant submitted his reasons for appealing in writing on 17 January 2011. At the same time, he offered a pledge that, if released, he would live in accordance with the law. 15. On 25 January 2011, at a private session, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and rejected his offer. It observed, inter alia, that there had been unjustified delay in dealing with the applicant’s request at the first level of jurisdiction, which could potentially serve as a ground for calling the President of its Chamber to account, but which in itself did not constitute a reason for releasing the applicant. 16. The written version of the decision of 25 January 2011 was served on the applicant via the District Court on 23 February 2011. It was not amenable to appeal. 17. In March 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He directed the complaint against the District Court and alleged that, in determining his request for release of September 2010, there had been a violation of his right under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to a “speedy” review of the lawfulness of his detention. In terms of redress, he claimed reimbursement of his legal costs and 6,000 euros (EUR) by way of compensation. 18. On 5 April the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible; on 21 June 2011 it found a violation of the applicant’s right as claimed. Referring to its previous judgments in cases nos. III. ÚS 7/00, I. ÚS 18/03, III. ÚS 126/05 and III. ÚS 216/07, the Constitutional Court observed that the “speediness” requirement would usually not be deemed to have been respected if the length of the proceedings in question amounted to months, as opposed to weeks; if the proceedings lasted more than one month at a single level of jurisdiction; or if there had been a period of judicial inactivity amounting to weeks. As regards the merits, the Constitutional Court found the District Court’s handling of the applicant’s request “particularly lengthy” and “extraordinarily and unacceptably long”. It could neither be justified nor explained by the fact that, at the hearing held on 27-29 October 2010 (see paragraph 10 above), the applicant had taken no action and had not demanded a decision on his request for release. 19. As regards just satisfaction, it awarded the applicant reimbursement of his legal costs but rejected the remainder of his claim. In that regard, the Constitutional Court referred to “the principle of fairness”, “the particular circumstances of the case”, and a premise that monetary compensation was only to mitigate loss suffered as a result of a violation of an individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms. It concluded that the finding of a violation of the applicant’s rights was sufficient just satisfaction for him. 20. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 23 September 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 1971 and lives in Buenos Aires. He is a military pilot. 5. On 11 August 2005 his child was born of his marriage with M.T.R. who holds both Romanian and Argentinean nationality. At the date of the facts, the family’s permanent residence was in Argentina, but they travelled due to the applicant’s various work assignments. 6. In September 2006 the applicant was sent to a UN mission in Cyprus where his family joined him shortly after. While in Cyprus, the family travelled to Spain to visit the applicant’s sister. In order to facilitate the travelling, the applicant and his wife signed an authorisation form allowing each one of them to travel abroad with the child. 7. After having lived together for seven months in Cyprus, the applicant and M.T.R. decided together that M.T.R. would take their child to Romania for a few months, and would join the applicant in Buenos Aires in October, at the end of his contract in Cyprus. The parents agreed that M.T.R. and the child would return to Argentina before 15 October 2007, the date at which the child’s passport would expire. 8. M.T.R. was unable to make travel arrangements on time, as the applicant had been late in sending money for the tickets, and eventually the child’s passport expired. M.T.R. sought the applicant’s consent to request a Romanian passport for the child, but the applicant refused. 9. On 14 November 2007 M.T.R. informed the applicant that she would not return with the child to Argentina. Later on, on 3 February 2008 she filed for divorce and custody of the child before the Romanian courts. 10. On 16 November 2007 the applicant withdrew the authorisation that he had given to the wife to travel with the child. On 4 December 2007 he also lodged a request for the return of the child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”), with the Argentinean Ministry of Foreign Relations, the Central Authority for the purpose of the Hague Convention. 11. On 4 January 2008 the notification made by the applicant was received by the Romanian Ministry of Justice, the Central Authority for the purpose of the Hague Convention (“the Ministry”). At the Ministry’s request, the police visited M.T.R.’s home and inquired about their situation. She provided copies of their identity papers and of the authorisation form allowing her to travel with the child. 12. On 12 February 2008 the Romanian Central Authority tried unsuccessfully to engage the mother in negotiations concerning the return of the child to Argentina. On 30 March 2008 they lodged before the Bucharest County Court an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the child. 13. Five hearings took place in the case. At the first hearing M.T.R. filed a response to the applicant’s motion; a postponement was granted at the Ministry’s request. At the second hearing M.T.R. learned, allegedly for the first time, that the authorisation to travel had been withdrawn by her husband. This hearing as well as the next one were postponed at M.T.R.’s request. At the next hearing M.T.R. asked that the applicant’s request be dismissed; she claimed that he was sexually deviant and stated that she feared for her child’s safety should he be returned to his father. The applicant did not appear in court. 14. On 8 July 2008 the County Court granted the applicant’s request and ordered M.T.R. to return the child to the habitual residence in Buenos Aires within two weeks from the date of its decision. It noted that while the applicant had given his consent to the travel to Romania, his wife retained the child in Romania against the applicant’s will contrary to what had been initially agreed upon. It also observed that the parents maintained joint custody of the child, as they had been legally married at the date of the wrongful retention. It further noted that on 16 April 2008 the Huşi District Court had granted the couple’s divorce but had not decided on the custody of the child (see paragraph 21 below). It dismissed as unfounded the mother’s allegations that the applicant was not taking active part in the child’s upbringing and that his presence constituted a major risk for “the child’s physical, psychical, emotional and affective development”. The decision was final and enforceable within two weeks. 15. On 12 August 2008 M.T.R. appealed in cassation. The case was heard on 27 November 2008 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal. In a final decision of 4 December 2008 the court upheld the County Court’s decision. 16. On 22 December 2008 the Ministry requested the assistance of a bailiff for the enforcement of the final decision. On 8 January 2009 the bailiff informed M.T.R. of the obligation to comply with the court order. The next day M.T.R. lodged an application for a stay of execution which was dismissed by the Bucharest County Court on 25 March 2009. A new enforcement attempt took place on 2 April 2009 when M.T.R. informed the bailiff that she refused to comply with the return order. She explained that the applicant could keep contact with the child through internet and webcam, that she kept him updated with the developments of the child and that he did not support the child financially. On that day the bailiff decided to postpone the enforcement proceedings. 17. At the same time, M.T.R. requested the annulment of the final decision of 4 December 2008 (contestaţie în anulare) which she considered to be “unfounded and unlawful” (netemeinică şi nelegală). On 23 February 2009 the Bucharest Court of Appeal granted her request, quashed the return order and sent the case back for re-examination of the appeal on points of law. The Court of Appeal retried the appeal and in a final decision of 4 May 2009 dismissed the initial request for the return of the child. The court considered that the child’s arrival to Romania was not unlawful as both parents had consented to the trip. It also found that the child was already integrated in his new environment. It considered that it would not be in the child’s best interest to return to Argentina, because the applicant travelled often due to his job as a military pilot and consequently could not take proper care of the child: “The social workers’ reports in the case and the child’s psychological evaluation show that the child is harmoniously developed – affectively, emotionally and intellectually -, is affectively attached to his mother and maternal grandmother, and is integrated in the environment in which he lives since his arrival in Romania. His return to Argentina is perceived by the court as not corresponding to his superior interest in so far as, notably, his father being a military pilot, is selected for missions within the United Nations, which makes it impossible for him to be preoccupied with raising, caring for and educating the child; in addition frequent travel by the child with his father in these missions is unfavourable to the child’s harmonious development.” 18. On 15 May 2009 the Ministry informed the Argentinean Central Authority of the outcome of the proceedings and advised the applicant to request a right of access under the Hague Convention. The Argentinean Central Authority sent the decision to the applicant and expressed their disagreement with the court’s reasoning. They argued mainly that the protractions leading to the child becoming integrated in his new environment, in Romania, were not imputable to the applicant, but to the Romanian authorities themselves. Moreover, they claimed that the Romanian courts were wrong in considering that because of his profession the applicant could not take care of the child; in any event, such consideration should have been examined and decided by the courts ruling on the custody of the child. 19. The Ministry kept close contact with the Argentinean Central Authority throughout the proceedings, informing them of the progress of the case and seeking information requested by the courts about the applicant. 20. On 3 February 2008 M.T.R. filed for divorce and custody of the child. On 27 February 2008 the Ministry informed the applicant of those proceedings. 21. On 16 April 2008 the Husi District Court granted the divorce but decided not to rule on the custody matters before the end of the Hague proceedings which were pending at that time. The applicant did not appeal and the decision became thus final. 22. On 26 September 2011 the Bucharest District Court granted M.T.R. custody of the child and awarded the applicant visiting rights. The parties appealed; the applicant contested the alimony set by the court. The decision became final with certain amendments on 6 December 2012 when the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals on points of law lodged by the two parents. 23. In the latter part of 2009 the applicant travelled for the first time to Romania since the beginning of the conflictual situation. He stayed with M.T.R. and his child in M.T.R.’s apartment in Husi for a month. 24. In 2010 the applicant travelled to Romania on two occasions, once accompanied by the child’s paternal grandmother. The child was able to spend time with his father and shared his hotel room for one night.

{'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 habitually resides in Pružina. 6. Between 29 October 2007 and 12 March 2009 the applicant was charged with a number of offences, mainly of a violent nature and with an organised crime background. 7. On 27 September 2008 he was arrested in the context of his prosecution on these charges, and subsequently remanded in custody pending trial. At the time of his request for release, which forms the subject matter of this application and is described in detail below, his detention was authorised by the Special Court (Špeciálny súd) until 27 September 2009. 8. After the events complained of, the applicant was released on 1 April 2010. However, the criminal proceedings against him appear to be still pending. 9. By a submission dated 20 May 2009, addressed to the Office of Special Prosecutions (Úrad Špeciálnej prokuratúry - “the OSP”), and received by its addressee on 26 May 2009, the applicant requested release. He relied on a recent judgment of the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) concerning the status of the Special Court (see Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, §§ 11-15 and 68-89, 21 June 2011), argued that his detention on the authority of the Special Court had been unlawful, and maintained that his detention had in any event been unwarranted. 10. By a submission dated 21 May 2009, the applicant addressed a similar request to the Office of the Prosecutor General (Generálna prokuratúra - “the OPG”), where it was received on 25 May 2009. 11. Lastly, by a submission dated 21 May 2009, addressed to the Special Court and received there on 29 May 2009, the applicant requested release on similar grounds and offered a formal pledge that, if released, he would live in accordance with the law. 12. By law, all three submissions fell to be examined at first instance by the OSP. Those made to the OPG and the Special Court were therefore transmitted to the OSP on 26 May and 3 June 2009, respectively. 13. As the OSP did not grant the request formulated in the three submissions, they fell to be judicially examined by the Special Court, to which they were transmitted on 2 and 3 June 2009, respectively. 14. By way of a submission dated 23 May 2009, which was received by the Special Court on 29 May 2009, the applicant expressed objections to the handling of his case by the Special Court judge who was handling his detention case at first-instance, which the Special Court interpreted as a challenge to the judge on the grounds of bias. 15. On 2 June 2009 the challenge was dismissed. On 10 June 2009 the decision was served on the applicant and on 11 June 2009 he lodged an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť), which was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) on 24 June 2009. The case file was returned to the Special Court on 1 July 2009. 16. On 1 July 2009 the Special Court ordered that the request be examined in the framework of a public session (verejné zasadnutie) to be held on 13 July 2009. 17. On 8 July 2009 the Special Court was informed that the applicant’s lawyer had been struck off the list of counsel and thus could no longer represent him. In response, on 9 July 2009 the Special Court enquired of the investigator whether the applicant had been asked to appoint a new lawyer and, if so, whether he had actually done so. Later on the same day, the investigator asked the applicant to appoint a lawyer within three days, failing which a lawyer would be appointed for him by the court. 18. On 13 July 2009 the applicant was heard before the Special Court. He submitted that it was his intention to appoint a lawyer, that the three-day timescale allowed him for that purpose had been unrealistically short, and that he disagreed with having a lawyer appointed for him by court. 19. In the circumstances ‒ as legal representation was mandatory ‒ the public session scheduled for later on 13 July 2009 had to be cancelled. 20. Nevertheless, on the same day, that is on 13 July 2009, the applicant also made a written submission containing his arguments and waiving his right to have the request for release examined in a public session. 21. On 16 July 2009 the Special Court appointed a lawyer for the applicant and dismissed the applicant’s request for release. The written version of the decision to dismiss the applicant’s request for release was served on his court‑appointed lawyer on 21 July 2009, on his subsequently appointed lawyer of choice on 27 July 2009, and on the applicant himself on 30 July 2009. In it, the Special Court recapitulated the procedural history and the applicable statutory provisions. In addition, it observed that the Constitutional Court’s judgment referred to by the applicant (see paragraph 9 above) had not yet been published in the Collection of Laws. Its rulings had thus not entered into force yet and the Special Court’s status was not compromised for the time being. Moreover, the Special Court explained in detail why it considered the applicant’s detention necessary and why his release in return for a pledge of lawful conduct was not acceptable. 22. By way of an interlocutory appeal lodged by both the applicant’s lawyer and the applicant himself, the applicant challenged the decision of 16 July 2009 to dismiss his request for release. The appeal lodged by his lawyer was dated 23 July 2009, was addressed to the Special Court, reached its addressee on 27 July 2009, and was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 31 July 2009. The applicant’s own appeal was dated 2 August 2009, was addressed directly to the Supreme Court, and was received there on 5 August 2009. 23. At the same time as lodging the appeal, the applicant challenged the entire criminal-law bench of the Supreme Court on grounds of bias, once again relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment mentioned above (see paragraph 9). 24. On 13 August 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge. Prior to this decision, all the Supreme Court judges concerned had been asked to state a position in respect of the challenge and a special chamber had been appointed to rule on it. 25. On 25 August 2009, sitting in private (neverejné zasadnutie), the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal against the decision of 16 July 2009. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 2 September 2009. 26. On 4 November 2009 the applicant filed a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) with the Constitutional Court. The complaint was directed against the Specialised Criminal Court (Špecializovaný trestný súd), which had by then come into being as the legal successor to the Special Court, and also against the Supreme Court and the OSP. 27. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalents, he argued that his request for release had not been determined by an independent tribunal, that its dismissal had not been supported by adequate reasoning, that he had arbitrarily been denied his right to release pending trial, and that his request had not been determined “speedily”. 28. In terms of relief, the applicant requested that the decisions of 16 July and 25 August 2009 be quashed, that his release be ordered, and that he be awarded 21,000 euros (EUR) by way of compensation for non‑pecuniary damage, plus reimbursement of his legal costs. 29. On 17 June 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible for being in essence manifestly ill-founded. 30. As to the complaint about the alleged failure to achieve a speedy determination of the applicant’s request, the Constitutional Court observed, in particular, that the delay in serving the Special Court’s decision of 16 July 2009 on his lawyer of choice and the applicant himself (see paragraph 20 above) was due to the facts that the lawyer of the applicant’s choice had only announced his appointment to the police, that this information had accordingly had to be transmitted to the court, which had taken some time, and that the prosecution service had failed to inform the court that, at the given time, the applicant had been transferred to a prison other than the one known to the court, as a consequence of which the decision had been sent to a wrong address and had had to be sent again. 31. Examining separately the proceedings before the Special Court and the Supreme Court and the involvement of the OSP, the Constitutional Court concluded that, taking into account all the circumstances, there had been no delays attributable to the authorities that had reached a constitutionally relevant threshold. From that perspective, the Constitutional Court considered that any delays resulting from the applicant’s challenges alleging bias had been imputable to him and that the relevance of the delays in serving the Special Court’s decision of 16 July 2009 on the applicant (on 30 July 2009) ‒ which had been due to a lack of coordination among the authorities concerned ‒ had been diminished by the service of that decision on the lawyer of the applicant’s choice on 27 July 2009. The written version of the Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 26 August 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 1987 and lives in Chisinau. 6. The applicant and O.P. were in a relationship for over one year. They did not live together but often used to spend the night over each other’s house. Towards the end of their relationship they started to have disputes because O.P. became very jealous. According to the applicant he also became violent. 7. On the evening of 10 May 2010 O.P. became upset with the applicant because she was not at home for several hours and did not answer his telephone calls. He waited for her in front of her home and when she arrived he assaulted her and forced into his car. The applicant’s attempts to escape were countered by O.P.’s violent behaviour and threats with violence and death. According to the applicant, he punched her, pulled her hair and threatened her every time she wanted to leave the car. O.P. denied the applicant’s allegations concerning the acts of violence and only admitted having slapped her face several times before entering the car. He submitted that she did not object to their going to his home. 8. At midnight the applicant and O.P. arrived at the latter’s house in a village near Chişinău. According to the applicant, O.P. locked her inside the house and left her alone for approximately forty-five minutes. The applicant attempted to escape but was not able to and there was no telephone in the house. She also submitted that she did not have money and that her clothes were torn and dirty with blood. After O.P.’s return he ordered the applicant to undress and to lie with him on the bed. As a result of the applicant’s refusal they clashed but O.P. broke her resistance by violently assaulting and threatening her after which he raped her. In the morning, when the applicant attempted to leave O.P.’s house, a new dispute broke out between them. After assaulting her, O.P. forcefully sodomised her against her will and only after that he called a taxi for her. 9. On 11 May 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against O.P. and underwent a forensic medical investigation. A medical report issued on the same date found multiple bruises on the applicant’s face, lips, neck and thorax. Some of the bruises were as large as 5x4 centimetres. Traces of semen were found only in her vagina. 10. On 14 May 2010 O.P. underwent a forensic medical investigation as a result of an order issued by a prosecutor. A medical report found scratches produced by nails on his neck. The medical report recorded that O.P. had not denied having had sexual intercourse with the applicant; however, he had insisted that both partners had consented. The report concluded that the injuries on his body resembled those frequently inflicted by rape victims. 11. In his statements to the prosecutor, O.P. denied having had sexual intercourse with the applicant both on the evening of 10 May and in the morning of 11 May 2010. He also denied having forced the applicant into his car and having taken her by force to his house and claimed that she had consented to come with him. He admitted having slapped her face twice on the evening of 10 May 2010 as a result of which she had riposted by scratching his neck. O.P. could not explain the presence of bruises outside her face, the presence of traces of semen in her vagina and the conclusion of the forensic doctors that the injuries on his body appeared to be inflicted by a rape victim. He only submitted that he disagreed with the conclusions of the medical report which reached the above conclusion. 12. On 6 August 2010 the Chisinau Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings. When describing the facts of the case in his decision, the prosecutor relied solely on O.P.’s version of the facts according to which the applicant used to date and to engage in sexual activity with him for one year before the events. On the evening of 10 May 2010 O.P. came to her house but did not find her at home. He waited for the applicant and when she returned, they engaged in an argument and he hit her while she scratched his neck. After that, both calmed down and went to O.P.’s home where they spent the night. In spite of O.P.’s statements to the effect that he and the applicant had not had sex on that night, the prosecutor recorded in his decision that according to O.P., he and the applicant had had consensual sexual intercourse that night. The prosecutor mentioned the findings of the forensic doctors to the effect that the scratches on O.P.’s neck resembled injuries provoked by a rape victim. Nevertheless, he dismissed the applicant’s version of the events on the ground that she used to date O.P. and have sex with him and because she could have resisted had she really wanted to. The prosecutor also concluded that the applicant consented to go to O.P.’s house and, the latter’s parents who lived with him, would have heard had she really resisted. 13. On 6 August 2010 the Chisinau Prosecutor’s Office initiated administrative proceedings against O.P. for the offence of assaulting the applicant. 14. The applicant appealed against the prosecutor’s decision not to initiate criminal proceedings against O.P. She argued, inter alia, that her neighbours had witnessed how O.P. assaulted and forced her into his car on the evening of 10 May 2010. Her unsuccessful attempt to run away from him had also been witnessed by employees of a petrol station where O.P. had stopped the car. She also argued that she had lost consciousness for a while as a result of one of the blows to her head and that the next day she went to a hospital where she was diagnosed with concussion. She argued that the prosecutor had failed to check that information with the hospital, despite her asking him to. 15. The appeal was dismissed on 9 December 2010 by a superior prosecutor from the Chisinau Prosecutor’s Office without any further investigation into the circumstances of the case. The applicant appealed to an investigation judge. 16. On 7 February 2011 an investigation judge from the Rascani District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and ordered a fresh examination of the case. He found that the investigation had been superficial and incomplete and no witnesses had been heard. The judge also quashed the prosecutor’s decision of 6 August 2010 to initiate administrative proceedings against O.P. for assaulting the applicant (see paragraph 13 above). 17. In the reopened investigation, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered and obtained two new forensic medical reports. According to one of them, the injuries on O.P.’s neck could have been produced either as a result of a rape or as a result of a fight. Another report concluded that the injuries on the applicant’s body could have been produced by an assault committed by O.P. and that they were not characteristic of rape. As to the traces of semen in her vagina, the report concluded that it was not possible to determine whether they dated from 11 May 2010 or from previous intercourse. In his new statements, O.P. submitted that he had had unprotected sex with the applicant between 7 and 9 May 2010 but not on 10 or 11 May 2010. He also admitted having slapped her face several times on the evening of 10 May 2010. A witness who was O.P.’s friend stated that he had seen O.P. and the applicant on the evening of 10 May 2010 at approximately 10 p.m. O.P. came out of the car and talked to him for several minutes while the applicant waited calmly in the car. O.P.’s parents were heard and they stated that they lived in the vicinity of their son. In particular, their house was several metres away from his house. They knew that their son was dating the applicant and had seen her on several occasions; however, they had not seen her on 10 or 11 May 2010 and did not hear any noise from their son’s house. 18. On 18 April 2011 a prosecutor from the Chisinau Prosecutor’s Office dismissed again the applicant’s complaint concerning rape. He concluded that even if O.P. and the applicant had had sex on 10 or 11 May 2010, it must have been consensual since no injuries characteristic of rape had been discovered on her body. Moreover, the applicant willingly came to O.P.’s house and did not leave when presented with an opportunity. She also could have resisted rape had she wanted to. The prosecutor considered that O.P. had committed a minor offence when assaulting the applicant; however, he could not be held responsible for it because it was time barred. Moreover, O.P.’s violent reaction had been provoked by the applicant’s immoral behaviour as she had gone for a walk with another person, had not replied to O.P.’s telephone calls and had come back late letting him wait for a long time. 19. The applicant’s appeals were rejected on 22 August 2011 by a hierarchically superior prosecutor and on 23 November 2011 by an investigation judge from the Rascani District 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 applicants were born in 1974 and 1981 respectively and live in Podgorica. 6. At the relevant time they were in detention (u pritvoru) at the Institution for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions (Zavod za izvršenje krivičnih sankcija, hereinafter “IECS”), where they shared a cell with five other detainees. 7. On 27 October 2009 the first applicant was to be transferred to a disciplinary unit (disciplinsko odjeljenje) and the cell in which he was detained was to be searched. The submissions of the applicants and the Government as to what exactly happened on that occasion differ. 8. The first applicant submitted that after having entered his cell, several guards had grabbed him and thrown him on to the concrete floor of the corridor outside the cell. They had handcuffed him, beaten him using batons and their fists, and sworn at him. In addition, two rows of guards positioned along the corridor had beaten him as he was being taken away. 9. The second applicant submitted that he had protested against this abuse. In response, four guards had started to kick him and had beaten him with their fists and batons. After that he had been taken into the corridor outside the cell, where eight other guards had continued to beat him. The beating had continued after he had returned to the cell. 10. The Government, for their part, submitted that the applicants had resisted the actions of the prison guards and had tried to prevent them from performing their duties, which had triggered the guards’ intervention. In particular, when they had entered the cell the second applicant had attacked one of the guards without any reason and had injured him. 11. The first applicant had refused to be examined by a prison doctor as he doubted his impartiality. On the same day, however, he had talked to the doctor and, in answer to the doctor’s question whether he was feeling well and whether he had any injuries, he had apparently said “No, doctor, I am healthy and both physically and psychologically stable, and I do not consent to an examination; there is no need for it as I have not been ill-treated either physically or psychologically by the security forces”. 12. The second applicant had been examined by the prison doctor after the Deputy Ombudsman had made a request to that effect. It would appear that the doctor made two reports in this regard. The Ombudsman, who obtained the reports from the IECS, described them as barely legible and apparently referring to the same subject matter in two different ways. 13. On 30 October 2009 the first applicant’s representative in the domestic criminal proceedings reported the incident to the prison governor and requested that the appropriate responsible bodies be informed, that his client be provided with medical assistance, and that no further punitive measures be taken against him. 14. On an unspecified date before 4 November 2009 the State prosecutor (Osnovno državno tužilaštvo) asked the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Danilovgrad to establish the elements of criminal offences of torture and ill-treatment (predlog radi utvrđivanja elemenata bića krivičnog djela mučenje i zlostavljanje). Acting upon this an investigating judge (istražni sudija) from the Court of First Instance requested, inter alia, the medical examination of both applicants by an external forensic doctor, and ordered evidence to be heard from a number of individuals, including the prison guards, and the second applicant. 15. On 4 November 2009 an external forensic doctor examined the second applicant. He confirmed in his report that the second applicant had light body injuries, namely a 10-day old haematoma (krvni podliv) measuring 8 x 15 cm on the back of his left thigh and a haematoma on the lower lid of each eye. The doctor added that there was an undated medical report in the second applicant’s file confirming the presence of bruises around his eyes. He emphasised that the medical documentation provided by the IECS was “largely illegible”. The first applicant refused an examination by the external forensic doctor, as the examination had apparently been ordered when his bruises were already fading. 16. On 5 November 2009, the first applicant’s mother – during a visit – observed bruises on his face and haematomas on visible parts of his body. She reported this immediately to the prison administration (Upravi zavoda). On 9 November 2009 she lodged a criminal complaint (krivična prijava) with the competent State prosecutor against persons unknown, stating that the first applicant had two bruises, one on his left temple – which was already fading – and another on one of his legs, and that he had also complained that he was having difficulty sitting. 17. On an unspecified date the second applicant’s mother – who had been informed by one of the detainees about what had happened – reported the incident to the Ombudsman and visited her son. She observed that his eyes were closed and his face and visible parts of his body were covered in bruises. She reported this to the prison administration and asked that it be investigated. On 6 November 2009 she lodged a criminal complaint with the police (Upravi policije) against persons unknown. 18. On 5 November and 10 November 2009 the State prosecutor asked the Court of First Instance in Danilovgrad to investigate the complaints lodged on behalf of the second and first applicants respectively (predlog za preduzimanje istražnih radnji). Acting upon this the investigating judge requested, inter alia, a video-recording from the prison, the identification of all the guards who had been involved in the cell search, and that the evidence be heard from a number of individuals, including the prison guards, other detainees in the cell, the first applicant, and the first applicant’s representative in the domestic criminal proceedings. 19. The requested questioning (see paragraphs 14 in fine and 18 in fine above) took place between 4 November and 9 December 2009. Two of the detainees stated that they had seen the first applicant being beaten. Some of the guards stated that the first applicant had resisted being handcuffed by “attempting to get out of [their] hands, cursing and swearing” and, when on the floor, by kicking out (“gicao se i mlatio nogama i rukama”). One of the guards admitted “hitting [the first applicant] once with a baton, as he continued to resist and kick”. Another guard, who had seen the first applicant several days after the incident, had observed a cut below his left eye as well as a visible injury to one of his legs. 20. When visiting his client several days after the incident, the first applicant’s representative in the domestic criminal proceedings had observed a bruise under one of his eyes, and a bruise on the calf of his left leg with a diameter of about 20 cm. He described him as frightened and “mentally broken”. 21. One of the guards stated that the second applicant had grabbed the collar of one of his colleagues from behind, following which the guard in question had fallen over a bench. The guard had pushed him away and the second applicant had hit the wall and sunk to the floor (pao je na zid i spustio se dolje na sjedalo). The guard stated that his colleague had not hit the second applicant. Three other guards confirmed this. The prison doctor stated that he had noticed a haematoma under the second applicant’s eye. Three detainees confirmed that the second applicant had been beaten by several guards both in the cell and in the corridor. The applicants, for their part, repeated their allegations. 22. On 12 February 2010 the State prosecutor rejected (odbacio) the criminal complaints against two guards, I.M. and R.T., on the ground that even though they had used force by hitting the first applicant three times and the second applicant once with a baton, they had done so in order to overcome the applicants’ resistance and thus acted within their powers (u granicama službenog ovlašćenja). While the first applicant had not been examined by a doctor, the medical documentation of the second applicant confirmed that he had sustained light injuries. That being so, the prosecutor concluded that the force used had not infringed human dignity and that there were no elements of any criminal offence entailing prosecution ex proprio motu. The prosecutor’s decision also identified other guards who had participated in the cell search. At the same time, the applicants were informed that they could pursue a subsidiary prosecution by lodging an indictment (optužni predlog) with the Court of First Instance. 23. On 23 February 2010 the lawyer retained by the applicants in respect of the complaints of alleged ill-treatment lodged an indictment for torture and ill-treatment which had resulted in severe bodily injuries (teške tjelesne povrede) against 16 prison guards named in the previous decision, including I.M. and R.T. 24. On 16 March 2010 the lawyer was informed by the first applicant that the video-recording obtained from the IECS by the Court of First Instance did not show the entire incident, namely it omitted his being beaten by two rows of guards in the corridor. He claimed, however, that another camera in the corridor must have recorded the beating and that the recording should be obtained from the prison authorities. 25. On 30 March 2010 the lawyer asked the court to obtain a recording from another camera, but apparently without success. 26. On 22 April 2010 the Court of First Instance decided that the applicants’ indictment was to be treated as a criminal complaint and, as such, was to be lodged with the State prosecutor. 27. On 10 May 2010 the applicants appealed against the above decision. At the same time they also lodged a criminal complaint with the State prosecutor. 28. On 13 September 2010 the High Court rejected the applicants’ appeal on the ground that the State prosecutor had delivered a decision only in respect of I.M. and R.T. and not the other guards. 29. On 19 October 2010 the State prosecutor rejected the applicants’ criminal complaint on the ground that there were no elements of any criminal offence entailing prosecution ex proprio motu. At the same time the applicants were notified that they could pursue a subsidiary criminal prosecution by lodging a request for an investigation (zahtjev za sprovođenje istrage) with the Court of First Instance. 30. On 12 November 2010 the applicants lodged a request for an investigation with the Court of First Instance. 31. On 10 February 2011 the Constitutional Court rejected (odbacuje se) a constitutional appeal by the applicants against the above decisions of the Court of First Instance and the High Court on procedural grounds. In particular, it considered that the applicants’ complaints were in substance about the criminal prosecution of other individuals and that – pursuant to the Court’s case-law – such complaints were incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention. It was also concluded that the decision of the Court of First Instance did not represent an “individual decision” in respect of which the Constitutional Court would be competent, but rather a procedural decision establishing whether the conditions were met for conducting an investigation in response to a direct indictment lodged by the applicants. In the impugned proceedings the courts had not decided on the merits of the request itself, but rather had ruled that the request should be treated as a criminal complaint. 32. On 18 March 2011 the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ request for an investigation on the grounds of lack of reasonable suspicion (osnovana sumnja) that the guards had tortured and ill-treated the applicants and that the force they had used had been necessary to overcome the applicants’ resistance. On 13 June 2011 the High Court upheld this decision. 33. On 30 October and 12 November 2009 the Deputy Ombudsman visited the applicants. She also spoke with other detainees from the same cell, who confirmed the first applicant’s allegations. She noted that the second applicant, who had “visible injuries on his head, especially around the eyes” as well as on his legs, had asked that he be allowed to lodge a criminal complaint and to be examined by the prison doctor. 34. In its response to an inquiry from the Ombudsman, the IECS stated that the second applicant had unjustifiably resisted and physically attacked guards who, in response, had used force and a baton to the extent necessary to overcome his resistance. The IECS also provided the doctor’s reports in respect of the second applicant, which were described by the Ombudsman as barely legible and from which it could be concluded that they dealt with the same subject matter, but had a different content. 35. In an opinion of 29 March 2010, the Ombudsman found that the applicants’ rights had been violated on 27 October 2009. The opinion stated that they had offered no resistance and that there had been no justification for the use of force (sredstva prinude), especially not to the extent and in the manner alleged. At the same time the Ombudsman recommended that the IECS institute disciplinary proceedings against the guards responsible and report to the Ombudsman within 20 days on the measures taken. 36. On 1 April 2010 disciplinary proceedings were instituted against three prison guards, I.M., I.B. and R.T. On 31 May 2010 they were found responsible and fined 20% of their salaries in October 2009 for abusing their position or exceeding their authority (zloupotreba položaja ili prekoračenje ovlašćenja) as they had used excessive force disproportionate to the resistance offered by the applicants on 27 October 2009. In particular, I.M. had hit both applicants once with a rubber baton, I.B. had kicked the first applicant, and R.T. had hit the second applicant on the lower part of the body with the baton. The applicants’ families and the Ombudsman were informed about the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and the applicants’ lawyer attended the hearing before the disciplinary commission. 37. Four other staff members who had participated in the cell search on the stated date, in relation to whom it was not proved that force had been used against the applicants, had apparently been transferred to other posts in other IECS units. 38. On 5 May 2010, during the parliamentary hearing of the prison governor (see paragraph 47 below), the Ombudsman confirmed that the IECS administration had duly acted upon his recommendations within the set time-limit. 39. On 15 March 2011 the applicants lodged a compensation claim against the IECS relying, inter alia, on Article 3 of the Convention, and seeking 15,000 euros (EUR) each for non-pecuniary damage caused by torture on 27 October 2009. 40. On 7 November 2013, after a remittal, the Court of First Instance in Podgorica ruled partly in favour of the applicants by awarding EUR 1,050 each for non-pecuniary damage on account of violations of their rights and EUR 397 for the costs of the proceedings. The court based its decision on section 166 of the Obligations Act (see paragraph 62 below). In its reasoning the court took into account the statements of the applicants and the prison guards, medical findings, the video-recording, the fact that the three prison guards had been found responsible in disciplinary proceedings for the disproportionate use of force and had been fined, and the fact that the applicants had offered resistance, thus contributing to the non-pecuniary damage. The court found that the guards had exceeded their powers but also explicitly held that such actions could not be qualified as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. 41. On 29 May 2014 the High Court upheld this judgment. In so doing it did not disagree with the conclusion of the first-instance court as to the qualification of the impugned incident. 42. On 23 October 2014 the Supreme Court partly overturned the previous decisions by awarding the applicants 1,500 EUR each for non-pecuniary damage, together with the statutory interest. In so doing the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that the use of force by prison guards could not be justified by the applicants’ resistance and held that such action was in breach of fundamental values of every democratic society and degraded human dignity, but that it did not constitute torture or inhuman treatment. The applicants received this decision on 25 November 2014. 43. The applicants also maintain that they were threatened or abused between 23 December 2009 and 15 January 2010, in which regard their mothers lodged criminal complaints on 18 January 2010. On 22 June 2011 the State prosecutor (Osnovni državni tužilac) rejected the criminal complaint as regards the threat against the first applicant on the ground that no such incident had taken place. The criminal complaint in respect of the abuse alleged by the second applicant would appear to be still pending. 44. Between 27 April and 5 May 2010 the first applicant went on hunger strike, the reason being that disciplinary proceedings, with regard to the events of 27 October 2009, had been instituted against only three guards, who – according to him – were those least responsible for what had happened to him. 45. On an unspecified date in early May 2010 the first applicant had a meeting with the prison governor. On that occasion he apparently suggested to show the prison governor the camera which had recorded the entire incident of 27 October 2009. The governor allegedly suggested that the first applicant draw a sketch instead. 46. On at least two occasions the applicants complained to their lawyer that their ill-treatment had been continuous, and on at least one occasion they threatened to commit suicide if the pressure on them did not ease. The lawyer informed the High Court, the Minister of Justice, and the prison governor, requesting that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against those responsible. 47. On 5 May 2010 and 14 June 2011 the prison governor was questioned by the parliamentary Human Rights Committee. 48. On 25 June 2011 the parliamentary Human Rights Committee submitted its report to Parliament, one of its conclusions being that “there had been no torture or systemic violations of human rights in the IECS and that all the reported cases of the use of force and exceeding of powers had been sanctioned”. 49. The applicants also submitted that they had been deprived of an effective domestic remedy because one of the deputy State prosecutors at the time was the prison governor’s daughter and the Deputy Supreme State Prosecutor was his wife. 50. The first applicant is currently serving four prison sentences. He had been convicted eight times prior to this for various criminal offences. During his detention he had been subject to disciplinary sanctions four times, and twice more while serving his prison 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 1949 and lives in Kraljevo. 6. On 6 November 2008 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Kraljevo ordered socially/State-owned companies Holding Kompanija FVK AD “Vagonogradnja”, Holding Kompanija FVK AD, and Koncern FVK AD “Vagonogradnja” (the debtors) to pay to the applicant certain sums on account of salary arrears and employment related benefits. 7. On 5 March 2009 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Kraljevo quashed one part of the judgment and remitted it to the first-instance court for a retrial. That part of the judgment is not the subject-matter of the present case. Furthermore, the District Court amended another part of the judgment of 6 November 2008 and upheld the remainder of it. 8. The relevant part of the judgment of 6 November 2008, as amended on 5 March 2009, became both final and enforceable on 20 April 2009. 9. On 28 December 2009 the applicant filed a request for enforcement of the judgment of 6 November 2008. 10. On 29 January 2010 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Kraljevo, now acting as the competent court, ordered the applicant to remedy some shortcomings in her request for enforcement. On 3 February 2010 the applicant did so. 11. On 26 April 2010 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtors were undergoing restructuring. 12. On 5 September 2011 the applicant requested the Court of First Instance to continue with the enforcement. 13. On 26 September 2011 the Court of First Instance issued an enforcement order. On 17 May 2012 the enforcement order was quashed on appeal, as the debtors’ names were changed in the meantime. 14. On 19 June 2012 the applicant informed the enforcement court of the debtors’ new names. 15. On 17 September 2013 the Court of First Instance issued a fresh enforcement order. It awarded the applicant 36,567 Serbian dinars (RSD) on account of the enforcement costs. On 13 December 2013 the enforcement order was upheld on appeal. 16. On 30 April 2014 the Court of First Instance ordered the applicant to provide further details about the debtors’ names, the amounts of social benefits due and the bank accounts for their payment. On 12 May 2014 the applicant provided the requested information. 17. The judgment of 6 November 2008, as amended on 5 March 2009 is yet to be enforced.

{'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 1978 and lives in Chisinau. 6. On 11 November 2009 at approximately 11.30 p.m. the applicant was arrested on the street by several police officers wearing plain clothes, on suspicion of possession of drugs. 7. According to the applicant, she was ill-treated by the police officers before being taken to the police station. At the police station she was held until the next morning. 8. In a medical report issued on 13 November 2009 a forensic doctor found that the applicant presented numerous bruises to her face, arms and hips. An x-ray examination of the applicant’s head, which according to the medical report was conducted on the same date, showed that the applicant also had a broken nose. 9. On 15 November 2009 the applicant was examined by a neurologist who determined that she had also suffered concussion. 10. On 14 January 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office concerning her ill-treatment by the police on 11 November 2009. 11. On 1 April 2010 the Rascani Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the ground that the applicant’s complaint was ill‑founded. The decision was based on the statements of the accused police officers who had denied having ill-treated the applicant and on the fact that there was a possibility that the applicant’s injuries were the result of her falling over. 12. On 15 October 2010 a superior prosecutor from the same Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s appeal. 13. On 29 November 2010 an investigating judge from the Rascani District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law and ordered a re-examination of the applicant’s case. The judge found that the investigation conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office had been superficial and incomplete. 14. After the reopening of the investigation, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered the conduct of a new forensic medical examination. In a report dated 30 December 2010 a forensic doctor found that on 13 November 2009 the applicant had presented numerous bruises on her face and limbs and a broken nose. The applicant’s injuries had been produced by at least six different blows with a hard blunt object and since they were located on different parts of her body, they could not have been a result of a fall from the height of her body. 15. On 20 May 2010 the Rascani Prosecutor’s Office refused again to initiate criminal proceedings. This time the prosecutor argued that according to his verifications in the documents of the hospital where the applicant had undergone an x-ray of her nose, the procedure had been carried out not on 13 but on 10 November 2009. Moreover, the prosecutor found a discrepancy between the records in the forensic medical report of 13 November 2009 where the time of the applicant’s ill-treatment was indicated as 1 a.m. on 12 November and her subsequent statements indicated it as 11.30 p.m. on 11 November 2009. This decision was upheld by a superior prosecutor on 26 September 2011 and by an investigating judge from the Rascani District Court on 1 November 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 first applicant is the mother and the remaining six applicants are the siblings of Mustafa Döleksoy who was born in 1952 and died in 2007. 7. 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. 8. At around 10 a.m. on 25 August 2007 Mustafa Döleksoy’s neighbours noticed a strong smell coming from his summer house near the town of Erdemli in southern Turkey. They informed the caretaker and the security guard of the summer house complex, who immediately went to Mustafa Döleksoy’s house. The door to the house was closed but the two men were able to see, by looking under the door, that Mustafa Döleksoy was lying on his back on the floor. They then called the gendarmerie. 9. A number of gendarmes, accompanied by a doctor from the local health clinic, arrived at the scene at around 10.30 a.m. As the door to the house was locked, a locksmith had to be found to open the door. 10. The doctor who accompanied the gendarmes prepared a report at 10.30 a.m. in which he concluded that Mustafa Döleksoy had died of a cerebral haemorrhage and circulatory failure which had been caused by head trauma as a result of falling from the worktop in the kitchen. The doctor estimated that the death had occurred four to five days previously. 11. In their statements to the gendarmerie, the applicants Mahmut and Ahmet Cengiz Dölek said that they did not know who might have been responsible for the death of their brother and that they did not suspect anyone in particular. The caretaker and the security guard of the summer house complex were also questioned by the gendarmes and they were reported as having stated that they had no idea how Mustafa Döleksoy might have met his death. 12. The Erdemli prosecutor went to the house at around 11.40 a.m. and drew up an examination report with the assistance of the same doctor. Mustafa Döleksoy’s body was formally identified by a colleague from the law firm where Mustafa Döleksoy had been working as a lawyer. The colleague also told the prosecutor that Mustafa Döleksoy had recently purchased the summer house and had been making preparations to move in. 13. In his report the prosecutor noted the presence of a large amount of dried blood on the floor which had come from Mustafa Döleksoy’s head. He observed that the corpse had swollen and the face had completely blackened. The doctor reported two fractures on both the left and right of the occipital region of the head and two cuts above the fractures. No indications of firearm injuries or stab wounds were noted on the body. A handful of hair found in the left hand of Mustafa Döleksoy and the samples taken from Mustafa Döleksoy’s own hair were placed in two separate envelopes and sealed. A decision was made to hand over to the family the clothes taken off the body, because the prosecutor considered that they had no evidential value as there were no holes in them caused by a firearm or a knife. The personal belongings, such as a wallet with money and credit cards in it and a mobile phone found in the trouser pockets, were taken away as evidence. 14. The doctor did not find it necessary to conduct a full post mortem examination because, in his opinion, the cause of death had already been established as cerebral haemorrhage and circulatory failure caused by head trauma. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that “the death had occurred in an empty house and the deceased had a clump of hair in his hand”, the prosecutor decided to send the body to the Adana Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute for a full post-mortem examination to be carried out so that any suspicions could be eliminated by determining the exact cause of death and the cause of the injuries observed on the head. 15. Crime scene officers from the gendarmerie who moved the body at 12.30 p.m. the same day after the prosecutor’s examination also noted the two cuts on the back of the head and recorded their finding in a report. According to the report, there were no signs of a struggle in the house which, in any event, had been unfurnished. The crime scene officers also drew up a sketch of the house which also indicated the position of the body. 16. The same day a post mortem examination was carried out at the Adana Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. The report pertaining to that examination was prepared on 12 November 2007. It was noted in the report that, contrary to what had been stated in the prosecutor’s report (see paragraph 13 above), the skull was intact and there were no fractures on it. The forensic experts considered that “the two lesions on the head”, which had been described as “cuts” in the prosecutor’s above-mentioned report, might have been caused by decomposition. 17. When preparing their report of 12 November 2007 the forensic experts also took into account two other forensic reports. The first report, dated, 24 September 2007, pertained to a toxicological examination and confirmed that there were no toxic substances in Mustafa Döleksoy’s body. 18. The second report taken into account by the forensic experts at the Adana Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute was obtained from the Biology Specialisation Department of the Istanbul Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute on 28 September 2007 and concerned the hair samples. According to that report, the hair samples found in Mustafa Döleksoy’s hand were “not responding to a DNA examination”. It was also stated in that report that, according to a DNA analysis, the stains found on the paper in which the hair found in Mustafa Döleksoy’s hand had been wrapped, and the hair samples taken from Mustafa Döleksoy’s head by the prosecutor (see paragraph 13 above) were a match. 19. In the light of the post mortem examination conducted by them on 25 August 2007, as well as having regard to the two expert reports summarised in the preceding paragraphs, the experts at the Adana Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute concluded in their report of 12 November 2007 that Mustafa Döleksoy had not been poisoned and that there was no medical evidence to show any involvement of an external factor in his death. On account of the fact that the hair found in Mustafa Döleksoy’s hand had not responded to DNA analysis, they could not establish whether or not it was his own hair. The experts concluded that they were unable to establish the exact cause of death on account of the advanced state of decomposition of the body. 20. On 19 December 2007 the lawyer representing the first applicant and her husband informed the Erdemli prosecutor in a petition that in their opinion their son had died in suspicious circumstances. They asked the prosecutor to examine their son’s law firm and his mobile phone with a view to clarifying the circumstances surrounding his death. They also asked for a copy of the investigation file to be given to them. 21. On 25 December 2007 the Erdemli prosecutor contacted the Biology Specialisation Department of the Istanbul Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute and requested that further examinations be conducted on the hair samples found in Mustafa Döleksoy’s left hand with a view to establishing whether they belonged to Mustafa Döleksoy and whether they were even human hair. The prosecutor also asked the Institute to explain why the hair samples had not responded to DNA analysis and requested that both hair samples be returned to his office after the new examination. 22. On 21 January 2008 the first applicant, Sultan Dölek, and her husband petitioned the Erdemli prosecutor and requested that a number of witnesses, including persons living in the same summer house complex where their son was found dead, be heard. Mr and Mrs Dölek also repeated their earlier request for their deceased son’s telephone records to be examined and informed the prosecutor that two persons had told them that their son had been receiving threatening telephone calls shortly before his death. 23. Mustafa Döleksoy’s parents also informed the prosecutor that their son and his wife had been involved in prolonged court proceedings in the course of which his wife had refused to divorce him. They alleged that Mustafa Döleksoy’s wife, accompanied by a number of persons, had attempted to go secretly to the farmhouse where Mustafa Döleksoy had been living some one and a half years previously, but had been deterred by his dogs. The dogs had subsequently been mysteriously poisoned and killed. They added that Mustafa Döleksoy’s wife had told them on a number of occasions that she would not divorce Mustafa Döleksoy and that she would “make him suffer”. They also added that their son’s death had occurred some two weeks after he had brought a new case for divorce. Finally, Mr and Mrs Dölek asked the prosecutor to examine why the hair found in their son’s hand had not responded to DNA analysis when the hair taken from his head by the crime scene officers had. 24. On 11 February 2008 Mr and Mrs Dölek presented another petition to the same prosecutor. They reiterated the suspicions they had voiced earlier about the alleged role of Mustafa Döleksoy’s wife in their son’s death and added that they had suspicions that the wife’s sister had also been involved in Mustafa Döleksoy’s death. They gave the prosecutor a copy of a post mortem report pertaining to the examination of the body of İ.B., who had been the husband of Mustafa Döleksoy’s wife’s sister, and who had been found dead in his house in 2001 in circumstances similar to those of their son. They told the prosecutor that İ.B.’s post mortem report had been given to them by their son Mustafa Döleksoy, who had told them that his wife and her sister might have been responsible for İ.B.’s death and that if anything were to happen to him, they should give that document to the investigating authorities. 25. A specialist department within the Istanbul Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute conducted a number of further examinations and adopted its report on 20 October 2008 in response to the prosecutor’s request of 25 December 2007 (see paragraph 21 above). It was established in the report that the hair found in Mustafa Döleksoy’s hand was human hair and that a certain amount of force must have been used to pull them from the scalp. The report confirmed the conclusion of the earlier forensic examinations that the “hair samples were not responding to DNA analysis”. According to the report, macroscopic and microscopic examination of the hair found in Mustafa Döleksoy’s hand had revealed strong similarities to the samples of his own hair. 26. On 4 December 2008 the Erdemli Public Prosecutor decided to close his investigation into the death. Taking into account the medical reports summarised above, the prosecutor considered that there was no evidence to show that Mustafa Döleksoy’s death had been “caused by an external source, such as having been killed intentionally or unintentionally by another person or persons”. 27. On 25 December 2008 Mrs Dölek filed an objection against the prosecutor’s decision, and argued that the investigation had been deficient. She alleged that the prosecutor had failed to take into account the information provided in her petitions. She further complained that the residents of a flat facing that of her son had not been heard and that the search for fingerprints and other evidence had not been carried out properly. Her son’s mobile telephone records had not been examined with a view to checking the calls made to and from his telephone at around the time of his death. She also questioned the forensic reports and submitted that the reason why the hair found in her son’s hand had not responded to DNA analysis while the hair samples taken from his own head had, had not been explained in the reports. 28. On 26 March 2009 the Tarsus Assize Court considered that the reasons set out in the prosecutor’ decision were adequate and rejected the objection lodged by the first applicant. This decision was communicated to the applicants’ lawyer on 28 May 2009. 29. The first applicant made an application to the Ministry of Justice on 6 April 2009 and asked the Minister to use his powers to intervene and issue an order to have the decision of the Tarsus Assize Court set aside. She repeated her earlier misgivings about the prosecutor’s investigation and argued that the decision of the Tarsus Assize Court rejecting her objection had not been adequately reasoned. She added that, although a decision had been made to return to the family the clothes her son had been wearing at the time of his death, this had not been done. 30. The application to the Ministry of Justice was rejected on 13 May 2009 on the grounds that the Tarsus Assize Court’s decision was in accordance with applicable law and procedure. 31. On 17 September 2009 Mrs Dölek wrote to the Erdemli prosecutor, and requested a copy of the investigation file together with the hair samples because she wanted to have a DNA examination of them carried out privately at a university. She pointed out that, according to academics from several universities with whom she had had contacts, a DNA examination could satisfactorily be carried out on the hair samples. 32. In reply to Mrs Dölek’s request, the Erdemli Public Prosecutor took another decision of non-prosecution on 13 October 2009 in which he set out the steps taken previously in the investigation. The prosecutor decided to give a copy of the documents from the investigation file, but refused permission for the hair samples to be handed over. He considered that this part of the request was not in conformity with domestic legislation. 33. Mrs Dölek lodged an objection on 22 October 2009 against the prosecutor’s decision and repeated her allegations about the investigation. 34. On 7 December 2009 the Tarsus Assize Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision because it considered that this decision had been adequately reasoned. That decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer on 14 January 2010. 35. A request made by the first applicant to the Ministry of Justice on 18 January 2010 to take steps to have the Tarsus Assize Court’s decision of 7 December 2009 set side was rejected by that Ministry on 3 March 2010. The Ministry’s decision was communicated to the applicants on 24 March 2010. 36. When notice of the application was given to the respondent Government, the Court requested the Government to obtain and to submit an explanation from their forensic authorities on whether the Forensic Medicine Institute’s conclusion that the hair found in the deceased person’s hand could not be subjected to DNA analysis was based on an adequate examination. 37. The Government complied with that request and submitted to the Court a report prepared by the Forensic Medicine Institute on 17 August 2012. In this report the scientific methods used by the forensic experts who drafted the above-mentioned reports were explained and it was stated that it had not been possible to obtain “autosomal, gonosomal or mitochondrial DNA results” from the hair found in Mustafa Döleksoy’s hand.

{'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 1954 and is currently detained in Giurgiu Prison. 5. On 19 May 2010 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having committed drug-related crimes. He was convicted on 6 May 2011 by the Bucharest County Court and sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment. The decision became final on 5 June 2012. 6. The applicant was held in the pre-trial detention facilities of the Bucharest Direction of Criminal Investigations until 16 November 2010. On that date he was transferred to Rahova Prison, where he remained until 13 August 2012. 7. He described the overall conditions of detention as follows: overcrowded cells, lack of natural light and lack of fresh air. In particular he described cells that measured about 19 sq. m and were 2.2 m high; each cell containing eight beds constantly occupied at full capacity; there was no natural light, only artificial light provided by one 40 W bulb which was insufficient; he had no access to fresh air. There was no refrigerator to store food in proper conditions. He shared cells with individuals arrested for violent crimes and there had been no means of summoning the guards, even though several violent incidents had taken place between the detainees. 8. According to the official prison records adduced by the Government, in the police detention facilities the applicant had been placed in cells situated in the basement (demisol), the first measuring 9 sq. m and containing four beds and the second measuring 13.5 sq. m and having six beds. The cells were occupied at full capacity. The cells had a table and chairs as well as a squat toilet, sink and shower separated from the living space by a curtain. The detainees had access to running water, and the cells were heated during winter. There was access to natural light, as each cell was provided with a window, but also to artificial light provided by a lamp placed in each cell, above the door, and protected by an iron grille. Personal hygiene was effected by means of products provided by the prison or acquired by the detainees themselves. 9. According to the same official information, in Rahova Prison the applicant had been held in different cells, all measuring 21 sq. m and containing eight beds (except for one cell where there were only six beds), a table, chairs and a support for a TV set. Adjacent to the cell there was a bathroom equipped with a toilet, sinks and a shower. Cold water was available continuously and hot water was available twice a week. The cell was heated to 18oC during the winter. The applicant was allowed to exercise for two hours daily in the interior courtyard and had access to outdoor and indoor sport facilities.

{'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 1965 and lives in Nizhniy Tagil. 5. On 19 August 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg convicted the applicant of massive fraud, an offence punishable with up to ten years’ imprisonment, and sentenced him to five and a half years’ in prison. 6. During the trial the applicant was represented by his counsel. 7. On 3 September 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal. 8. On 23 October 2009 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. It follows from the appeal judgment that the applicant could follow the appeal hearing by video link from the Yekaterinburg remand prison IZ-66/1. Counsel and prosecutor did not attend the hearing. 9. On 19 August 2009 the applicant was placed in Yekaterinburg remand prison IZ-66/1 and was held there until 27 October 2009. According to the applicant, conditions of detention there were inhuman and degrading because of overcrowding.

{'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 1961 and lives in Porto. 5. On an unknown date, the applicant and I. dissolved their marriage and the latter stayed with the children’s custody. 6. On 28 November 2008 the Porto Family Court adopted a decision establishing the applicant’s contact rigths. 7. On 27 May 2009 I. sent a letter to the applicant informing him that she had suspended his contact rights. 8. On 5 June 2009 the applicant lodged an application with the Porto Family Court informing about I.’s decision to not comply with the court’s decision of 28 November 2008 and asking the court to schedule a hearing with him and his former wife (audiência de pais) so he could continue to have access to his children (processo de incumprimento das responsabilidades parentais). 9. In June 2009 the Porto Family Court held a hearing with the parents and subsequently requested a social report about the children to the Social Security Institute (Instituto da Segurança Social). 10. On 14 July 2009 the Porto Family Court adopted a decision suspending the applicant’s right to visit his children for a period of three months on the grounds of the social report that had been submitted on 13 July 2009. The Family Court also requested a psychological assessment of the children. 11. From September 2009 to January 2012 the applicant lodged several requests with the Family Court seeking the reestablishment of his right to visit his children and asking permission to spend special dates (birthdays, Christmas, Easter) with them. 12. On 4 February 2010 the Social Security Institute submitted the children’s psychological report to the Family Court. On 18 February 2010 the report was challenged by the applicant who complained that he had not been heard. On 5 March 2010 the Family Court ordered the psychological report to be completed after the applicant had been heard. 13. On 22 March and 27 August 2010 two new reports were submitted to the Family Court and a mediation hearing with the parents was scheduled for November 2010. The hearing did not take place due to I.’s refusal to participate in the mediation. The proceedings continued and, on an unknown date, the Family Court adopted a decision stating that the applicant’s visits would continue to take place in an open place and in dates to be decided by the court. 14. On 30 March 2011 a hearing with the parents took place and both agreed that the applicant could continue to visit his children in the Family Court’s premises. 15. On 25 November 2011 the Family Court requested another social report on the children’s situation and their family. 16. On 2 February 2012 another social report was submitted to the Family Court and on 28 February the applicant was heard. 17. A hearing with the parents was scheduled for 27 March 2012 and later postponed to 2 May 2012. A few days after this hearing, the children were heard by the Family Court. 18. On 10 May 2012 a new hearing took place in which the applicant and I. reached a settlement concerning the rights of the former to visit the children. On the same day, the Family Court endorsed the agreement.

{'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 1953, in Slovenia, and lives in Braga, Portugal. 6. On 22 November 2006 the applicant brought a liability action (ação de responsabilidade civil) in the Braga Court against F., a lawyer who had acted as her legal representative in previous proceedings, claiming damages for professional negligence. 7. On 12 December 2006 F. was notified of the action. On 25 January 2007 he lodged his submissions in reply (contestação) and requested the intervention of his insurance company to which he had transferred his responsibility for the acts committed by him in his capacity as lawyer. 8. On 8 March 2007 the applicant lodged new submissions in reply (réplica). 9. By a Braga Court’s decision of 11 July 2007 the intervention of the insurance company in the proceedings was accepted. The company was summoned on an unknown date. On 14 September 2007 it lodged its submissions, to which the applicant replied on 11 October 2007. 10. Between January and April 2008 the parties disputed the applicant’s legal capacity to be a party to the proceedings (capacidade judiciária). 11. On 28 April 2008 the judge gave directions (despacho saneador) absolving F. of the proceedings (absolvição do réu da instância) on the grounds of the applicant’s lack of legal capacity. 12. On an unknown date the applicant appealed against that decision to the Guimarães Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação). By a decision of 4 December 2008 the Court of Appeal considered that the applicant had legal capacity and ordered the re-analysis of the case at first instance. In February 2009, the proceedings were allocated to the Braga Court. 13. On 29 April 2009 the judge gave directions setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding. 14. Between 28 May and 6 November 2009 the parties lodged, in total, three requests to which the judge promptly replied in less than one month. 15. On an unknown date the case was set down for hearing on 10 March 2010. The hearing was later adjourned to 15 June 2010. A second hearing took place on 7 October 2010. 16. On 29 October 2010 the Braga Court partially found in favour of the applicant. 17. The parties appealed against the decision to the Guimarães Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeals on 20 October 2011. 18. The parties challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision before the Supreme Court. 19. On 29 May 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.

{'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 1976 and is currently serving a life sentence in Zhytomyr Prison. 5. In 2001 the applicant was prosecuted for two counts of murder. Those criminal proceedings had been examined by the Court in the first case of the applicant (see Yaremenko v. Ukraine, no. 32092/02, 12 June 2008). The abridged facts from the above judgment, insofar as relevant, read as follows. 6. On 27 January 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murdering a taxi driver, M., and of several other crimes committed in 2001 (“the 2001 crimes”). At the applicant’s request, he was represented by lawyer O. Kh. during the initial questioning, which took place the same day. 7. On 1 February 2001 M., a police officer at the Kyiv Kharkivsky District Police Department (“the police department”), who was in charge of an investigation into the death of a taxi driver, Kh., in the summer of 1998, questioned the applicant with a view to establishing his possible involvement in that crime. The crime was classified as infliction of grievous bodily harm causing death, for which legal representation of a suspect was not obligatory. According to the applicant, he was beaten with truncheons on his wrists and shoulders by police officers, who forced him to sign a waiver of his right to counsel and to confess that he and S. had murdered taxi driver Kh. in the summer of 1998 (“the 1998 crime”). On the same day, that criminal case was transferred to the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds that the applicant’s actions could be classified as murder and the investigation of such a crime was within the competence of the prosecutor’s office. 8. On 2 February 2001 the criminal cases in respect of the 1998 and 2001 crimes were joined. On the same day, the applicant participated in a videotaped on-site reconstruction of the 2001 crimes. According to the minutes of this investigative action, which was attended by the applicant, his lawyer O. Kh., two attesting witnesses, investigating prosecutor G. and police officer M., who had questioned the applicant on the previous day, the applicant made statements concerning the circumstances of the 2001 crimes, but denied his involvement in the 1998 crime. His lawyer formally requested the authorities to conduct a medical examination of him. This request was handed to investigating prosecutor G., who acknowledged receipt by signing a copy of it. After the reconstruction had been conducted, the applicant signed a waiver in respect of his lawyer O. Kh., on the grounds that the said lawyer had prevented him from confessing to the 1998 crime. According to the applicant, while the waiver bore the date of 2 February 2001, it had actually been signed on a later date under coercion from the police officers and the case investigator. 9. On an unknown date investigating prosecutor G. replied to lawyer O. Kh., stating that his request of 2 February 2001 for a medical examination of the applicant could not be granted since he had been removed from the case. 10. On 7 February 2001 the applicant, who was represented by a newly‑appointed counsel, K., participated in a videotaped on-site reconstruction of the 1998 crime and confessed to having committed it with S. 11. On 8 February 2001 lawyer O. Kh. complained to prosecutor V. that investigating prosecutor G. had not replied to his request for a medical examination of the applicant, would not permit him to visit the applicant, and had tried to force the applicant to request a replacement lawyer. 12. On 9 February 2001 lawyer O. Kh. was informed that he had been removed from the case and was provided with the investigating prosecutor’s decision to that effect dated 2 February 2001. The decision stated, inter alia, that the applicant had confessed to the 1998 crime but had later asserted his innocence on the advice of lawyer O. Kh. The investigating prosecutor had therefore decided to remove lawyer O. Kh. from the case. 13. On 9 February 2001 the applicant, who was represented by yet another lawyer, Mi., was formally charged with the 1998 and 2001 crimes, served with the indictment and questioned as an accused. 14. On 14 February lawyer O. Kh. complained to prosecutor V. about the decision to remove him from the case, and asked him to quash that decision. In his reply of 19 February 2001, prosecutor V. informed lawyer O. Kh. that his removal from the case had been well-founded and was in accordance with Article 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further noted that the lawyer had breached his professional duties by advising his client to assert his innocence and retract part of his previous confession. 15. In a letter to the General Prosecutor’s Office (GPO) dated 4 March 2001, the applicant complained that he had signed the waiver in respect of lawyer O. Kh. under pressure from the police officers and the case investigator. 16. On 6 March 2001 lawyer O. Kh. complained to the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office about his removal. In a reply dated 13 April 2001, it stated that the decision to remove him had been well-founded, and that, moreover, the criminal case file contained a waiver in this respect signed by the applicant. 17. On 10 March 2001 the applicant submitted a request to investigating prosecutor G., asking that lawyer O. Kh., his first lawyer in the case, replace lawyer Mi. as his defence counsel. 18. On 24 April 2001 the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant’s letter of 4 March 2001. It informed him that the replacement of his lawyer had taken place at his request, that lawyer O. Kh. was allowed to return to the case, and that they had found no violation of criminal procedure law in the investigation of the criminal case against him. 19. On 27 May 2001 the applicant asked investigating prosecutor G. to cross-examine him together with his co-accused S., since the accusations against him had been mainly based on statements made by S. 20. On 1 June 2001 investigating prosecutor G. replied, informing the applicant that a cross‑examination would be conducted after S. was questioned further, in case any discrepancies emerged between their testimonies. 21. On 8 June 2001 the applicant was questioned in the presence of his first lawyer O. Kh. He confirmed all the statements with regard to the 2001 crimes he had made during the interview on 27 January 2001. He also claimed repeatedly that he was innocent of the 1998 crime, and explained that he had been forced to confess to the latter crime by officers from the police department. 22. On 24 June 2001 investigating prosecutor G. informed the applicant that his request for cross-examination had been rejected, since no discrepancies had been found between his and S.’s statements. 23. On 20 November 2001 the Kyiv Appellate Court, acting as a court of first instance, convicted the applicant and S. of the 1998 and 2001 crimes and sentenced them both to life imprisonment. Three other individuals were sentenced to between three and six years’ imprisonment. In its judgment the court made no mention of the fact that the lawyer had been removed from the case. The court also disregarded the denials by the applicant and S. of their involvement in the 1998 crime on the grounds that their confessions during the pre-trial investigation had been detailed and consistent. 24. On 18 April 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of the appellate court. In reply to a complaint by the applicant of a violation of his right to defence, the Supreme Court stated in its judgment given the same date that it found no evidence of a violation of the right to defence or of any other substantial violation of criminal procedure law that could provide a basis for quashing the judgment of the appellate court. The Supreme Court also stated that it had found no evidence that the applicant had been ill-treated. 25. On 13 August 2002 the applicant lodged an application (no. 32092/02) with the Court, alleging that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment in police custody and that his complaints in that regard had not been given due consideration. He also complained that he had been deprived of legal assistance of his own choosing during part of the proceedings, had been forced to incriminate himself, and that the above violations had resulted in an unfair trial. 26. By a decision of 13 November 2007, the Court declared his application admissible. 27. On 12 June 2008 the Court found a violation of Article 3 and Article 6 §§1 and 3 (c). The Court established in particular that: “67. As concerns the adequacy of the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, the Court considers that it had serious deficiencies. It notes in particular that no timely and specific medical examination was conducted on the applicant, despite the explicit request of his lawyer the day after the alleged ill-treatment took place. 68. The Court recalls that following a complaint by the applicant’s wife the prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the above allegations. It does not appear that any investigative actions were actually taken, given that neither the applicant nor his wife was questioned. The prosecutor’s decision of 28 February 2001 referred only to the fact that, during questioning on 9 February, that is, prior to his wife’s complaint of 12 February, the applicant had denied having any injuries. Furthermore, none of the alleged perpetrators of the offence were questioned at that time. In this connection the Court cannot agree with the Government that the applicant’s wife, in February 2001, and the applicant himself, in March 2001, provided information of so general a nature that the identity of the alleged perpetrators could not be established. In her complaint of 12 February the applicant’s wife referred to the investigating prosecutor G. and unnamed officers of the Kharkivsky District Police Department. In the Court’s opinion that information would have been sufficient for an independent investigator to identify those concerned, had the allegations of the applicant’s ill-treatment been considered seriously. 69. The Court further notes that the investigation into the applicant’s allegations lacked the requisite independence and objectivity. The first questioning of the applicant about his alleged ill-treatment was conducted by the investigating prosecutor G., whom the applicant’s wife, in her complaint of 12 February, clearly named among those who had coerced her husband. Moreover, in his refusal to institute criminal proceedings following the complaint of ill-treatment, prosecutor V., the head of the Kharkivsky District Prosecutor’s Office, did not even mention prosecutor G., who was from the same District Prosecutor’s Office. What is more, when the applicant provided the names of the other alleged perpetrators from the Kharkivsky Police Department, they were questioned by their alleged accomplice - investigating prosecutor G. ... 78. Notwithstanding the Government’s arguments that the applicant’s right to silence was protected in domestic law, the Court notes that the applicant’s lawyer was dismissed from the case by the investigator after having advised his client to remain silent and not to testify against himself. This reason was clearly indicated in the investigator’s decision. It was also repeated twice in the prosecutors’ replies to the lawyer O. Kh.’s complaints. In one of those replies (dated 19 February) it was also noted that the lawyer had breached professional ethics by advising his client to claim his innocence and to retract part of his previous confession. 79. Moreover, the Court finds it remarkable that the applicant and Mr S, over two years later, gave very detailed testimonies which according to the [sic] investigator contained no discrepancies or inconsistencies. This degree of consistency between the testimonies of the applicant and his co-accused raise suspicions that their accounts had been carefully coordinated. The domestic courts however considered such detailed testimonies as undeniable proof of their veracity and made them the basis for the applicant’s conviction for the 1998 crime, despite the fact that his testimony had been given in the absence of a lawyer, had been retracted immediately after the applicant was granted access to the lawyer of his choice, and had not been supported by other materials. In those circumstances, there are serious reasons to suggest that the statement signed by the applicant was obtained in defiance of the applicant’s will. 80. In light of the above considerations and taking into account that there was no adequate investigation into the allegations by the applicant that the statement had been obtained by illicit means (see paragraphs 67-70), the Court finds its use at trial impinged on his right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination. ... 86. The Court notes that in the instant case the applicant’s conviction for the 1998 crime was based mainly on his confession, which was obtained by the investigators in the absence of a lawyer and which the applicant retracted the very next day and then from March 2001 on. 87. The Court further notes with concern the circumstances under which the initial questioning of the applicant about the 1998 crime took place. As can be seen from the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure cited in the Domestic Law part, there is a limited number of situations in which the legal representation of the suspect is obligatory. One of the grounds for obligatory representation is the seriousness of the crime of which a person is suspected, and hence the possibility of life imprisonment as a punishment. In the present case the law-enforcement authorities, investigating the violent death of a person, initiated criminal proceedings for infliction of grievous bodily harm causing death rather than for murder. The former was a less serious crime and therefore did not require the obligatory legal representation of a suspect. Immediately after the confession was obtained, the crime was reclassified as, and the applicant was charged with, murder. 88. The Court is struck by the fact that, as a result of the procedure adopted by the authorities, the applicant did not benefit from the requirement of obligatory representation and was placed in a situation in which, as he maintained, he was coerced into waiving his right to counsel and incriminating himself. It may be recalled that the applicant had a lawyer in the existing criminal proceedings, yet waived his right to be represented during his questioning for another offence. These circumstances give rise to strong suspicion as to the existence of an ulterior purpose in the initial classification of the offence. The fact that the applicant made confessions without a lawyer being present and retracted them immediately in the lawyer’s presence demonstrates the vulnerability of his position and the real need for appropriate legal assistance, which he was effectively denied on 1 February 2001 owing to the way in which the police investigator exercised his discretionary power concerning the classification of the investigated crime. 89. As to the removal of lawyer O. Kh. on 2 February 2001, the Government’s argument that this was done solely at the applicant’s request seems scarcely credible, since this was not mentioned in the removal decision itself, and in the replies of the prosecutors it was referred to as an additional ground for the lawyer’s removal. 90. The Court notes that the fact that two other lawyers who represented the applicant saw him only once each, during questioning, and never before the questioning took place seems to indicate the notional nature of their services. It considers that the manner of and reasoning for the lawyer’s removal from the case, as well as the alleged lack of legal grounds for it, raise serious questions as to the fairness of the proceedings in their entirety. The Court also notes that the lawyer was allowed back onto the case in June 2001 without any indication that the alleged grounds for his removal had ceased to exist.” The Court’s judgment became final on 12 September 2008. 28. The judgment of the Court and the possibility of a retrial in the applicant’s case attracted media attention in Ukraine. Reports mentioned, among other things, that the applicant’s co-defendant S. had died several years earlier, while serving his sentence. 29. On 30 December 2008 the applicant lodged a request with the Supreme Court of Ukraine for an extraordinary review of his criminal case under Article 400 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights” (see paragraphs 34 and 36 below). The request was based on the Court’s judgment of 12 June 2008 (cited above), in which violations of Articles 3 and 6 had been found. The applicant also asked to be present during the examination of his request. 30. The Deputy Prosecutor General also lodged a request for review of the applicant’s case with the Supreme Court. He asked the court to exclude the applicant’s original confessions to the murder committed in 1998 as evidence, and maintained that the judgment had otherwise been lawful and well-founded. According to the applicant, his lawyer B. only learned of the content of the request at the hearing. 31. On 31 July 2009 the Supreme Court examined the case in the absence of the applicant but in the presence of his lawyer and the prosecutor. It allowed the applicant’s request in part and the prosecutor’s request in full. The Supreme Court noted that the domestic courts, having found the applicant guilty of the 1998 crime, had relied on his confession of 1 February 2001 and his questioning of 2 February 2001. It further noted that the European Court of Human Rights had held that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights as guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, namely his right to defence, since he had admitted his guilt to the police officers and made a written confession to the 1998 crime in the absence of a lawyer. The Supreme Court further held: “In review of the case (При перегляді даної справи), the judges at their joint meeting concluded that the written confession and statements of O.V. Yaremenko during his questioning as a suspect of murder of Kh. could not be considered admissible evidence that prove O.V. Yaremenko’s guilt in respect of that episode, since they were obtained in violation of the requirements of criminal procedure law. In these circumstances, they should be excluded from the body of evidence accusing O. V. Yaremenko of this episode of criminal activity. However, the exclusion of those pieces of evidence from the court decisions does not significantly affect the correctness of the conclusion of the court as to the proof of O.V. Yaremenko’s guilt on the count of the murder of Kh., because the case file contains other pieces of evidence that prove his guilt of that offence.” 32. The Supreme Court next listed other pieces of evidence that proved the applicant’s guilt, namely confessions made by him and S. during the on-site reconstruction of the crime and during further questioning with the participation of the lawyers, as well as a toolbox, which according to the witnesses belonged to Kh. and which S. left with his acquaintance D. in 1998. The Supreme Court further noted that the confessions made by the applicant and S. corresponded to the conclusions of the forensic expert examinations as to the circumstances of Kh.’s murder. It finally noted that the applicant’s allegations that the investigation into his alleged ill-treatment had been inefficient were not supported by the materials in the case file, and that there was no evidence that the applicant had been forced to confess. It concluded that there had been no substantial violation of criminal procedure law which would require a quashing of the judgment in the applicant’s case. 33. By letter of 3 September 2009 the decision of the Supreme Court was sent to the applicant’s representative.

{'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 1980 and lives in Zhytomyr. 5. At about 9 a.m. on 7 August 2002 two men, one of them wearing a mask, entered the applicant’s house, tied the applicant and took the valuables belonging to her and other household members. Subsequently, the unmasked man put a revolver in the applicant’s ear and fired a shot. The applicant survived, having sustained a permanent disability. To this day the bullet remains in her head. 6. On the day of the assault, the Zhytomyr police instituted criminal proceedings into the incident, examined the crime scene, collected fingerprints and other evidence, questioned the applicant’s household members and neighbors and ordered several expert assessments. 7. On 9 August 2002 the applicant was admitted in the proceedings as an injured party. 8. On several occasions the applicant identified the photos of various persons presented by the police as those of the unmasked offender. Among them, on 24 September 2002 she identified a certain V.P. 9. On an unspecified date I. K., V.P.’s partner, acknowledged to the police that she had seen a revolver in his possession. She also noted that at about 8 a.m. on 7 August 2002 V.P. had left their home for an appointment with his friend S.K. On that date he had returned home at about 1 p.m., wearing a new suit and carrying some money, which, according to him, had been entrusted to him by S.K. for safekeeping. 10. On 25 September 2002 A.V., V.P.’s neighbor, identified S.K. on a photograph, as V.P.’s friend. 11. On 8 October 2002 I.K. also identified S.K. on a photograph as V.P.’s friend. 12. On several occasions in October 2002 the authorities questioned S.K. as a witness. 13. On 18 October 2002 the investigation was suspended on the ground that all possible measures to locate the perpetrators had been exhausted. 14. On 5 November 2002 the Zhytomyr City Prosecutor’s Office revoked this decision, having found that additional measures were warranted. 15. Two further decisions to suspend the proceedings taken on 26 November and 16 December 2002, respectively, were, in turn, revoked by the prosecutor’s office on 4 December 2002 and 8 January 2003. 16. According to the applicant, in January 2003 she informed the investigator in charge of her case that she suspected that O.M., her cousin, had been the masked offender. Having assured her that he would conduct the necessary inquiries, the investigator left this information without any follow-up. 17. On 31 March 2003 the proceedings were suspended on the ground that all possible measures to locate the perpetrators had been exhausted. According to the applicant, she was not informed of this decision and kept soliciting the authorities to investigate her suspicions in respect of O.M. 18. On 24 June 2003 the applicant and several other members of her family complained to the Zhytomyr Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the length of the proceedings and the failure of the investigator to react to the applicant’s suspicions with respect to O.M. 19. On 25 July 2003 the prosecutor’s office informed the complainants that the proceedings had been suspended since 31 March 2003. On the same date it revoked the suspension decision, noting that the measures taken to identify the perpetrators had not been comprehensive, and transferred the case to the Korolyovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office in Zhytomyr for supervising further investigative activities. 20. On 4 September 2003 O.M. was arrested and remanded in custody. On the same date he confessed to his participation in the crime and identified S.T. as his accomplice. 21. On 5 September 2003 S.T. was arrested. He denied his involvement in the crime and presented various pieces of evidence that he had been in Moscow, Russia, on the date of the incident. 22. On 6 September 2003 the applicant identified S.T. as the second offender during an identification parade. 23. On 12 September 2003 O.M. retracted his confession alleging that it had been given under duress. Since that time he pleaded innocent and presented various pieces of evidence that he had been at his job as a vendor of ice-cream at the time of the incident. 24. On 3 February 2004 the criminal proceedings in respect of O.M. and S.T. were discontinued for want of evidence of their involvement in the incriminated offence. The applicant appealed, insisting that O.M. and S.T. had been the perpetrators. 25. On 28 April 2004 the prosecutor’s office revoked the decision to discontinue the proceedings and ordered further investigative measures to verify the applicant’s allegations as well as O.M.’s and S.T.’s alibis. 26. On five further occasions between 2004 and 2006 (in particular, on 1 and 23 June 2004, 23 February, 30 May and 10 November 2005) the proceedings against O.M. and S.T. were discontinued, these decisions having been subsequently quashed with reference to insufficiency of the measures taken to verify the relevant facts. Eventually, on 25 April 2006 the proceedings against S.T. and O.M. were again closed for want of evidence that they had committed the incriminated offence. The decision referred, in particular, to testimonies by several witnesses and various sources of corporeal and forensic evidence in support of the defendants’ alibis and cited various reasons, why they considered the applicant’s submissions to be inconsistent and improbable. 27. On 6 July 2005 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that following her complaints of inactivity on the part of the investigative authorities, the case had been transferred to the Vinnytsya Regional Prosecutor’s Office for further investigation. 28. On numerous occasions throughout the course of the investigation (in particular, on 14 July 2004, 15 August 2005, 25 April and 26 July 2006, 25 July 2008, 5 March 2009, 21 January and 20 August 2010, 11 March and 22 June 2011) the investigator in charge of the case requested the police to locate and question S.K. and V.P. as witnesses in connection with the proceedings at issue. A request to this end was also submitted to the Interpol and to the Polish police authorities. The parties did not inform the Court concerning any follow-up on these requests. 29. On eleven occasions between August 2005 and April 2012 (in particular, on 30 May, 19 August, 17 September 2005, 9 January, 8 February, 7 March, 27 April 2006, 31 March 2008, 20 July 2009, 11 October 2010 and 13 December 2011) the criminal proceedings in the applicant’s case were suspended on the ground that the measures available to the investigation had been exhausted without the perpetrators having been identified. These decisions were revoked by various branches of the prosecutor’s office, which found that the measures taken had not been exhaustive. 30. On 27 August 2007 the General Prosecutor’s Office acknowledged, in response to the applicant’s complaint, that the case had been protracted. 31. On 22 October 2007 the Vinnytsya Prosecutor’s Office reprimanded the Vinnytsya Police for inactivity in the investigation and ordered the officers responsible to speed it up. 32. On 1 July 2012 the K. family from Zhytomyr was robbed, several of its members having been shot. 33. On 7 July 2012 S.K. was arrested in Zhytomyr on suspicion of having committed the crime in respect of the K. family and remanded in custody. 34. By August 2012 S.K. confessed of having been involved in the above crime, as well as in a series of other robberies, assaults and murders, including the one in respect of the applicant. He further divulged that some of these crimes, including the one in the applicant’s respect, had been committed by him together with V.P. 35. The proceedings concerning V.P. were closed with reference to his death. 36. On 7 November 2012 the Deputy Zhytomyr Regional Prosecutor signed the bill of indictment accusing S.K. of numerous episodes of criminal activity. The evidence cited in respect of his assault on the applicant consisted, primarily, of S.K.’s own confessions and the sources collected in 2002 (see paragraphs 8-11 above). 37. On 9 November 2012 S.K. was committed to stand trial before the Korolyovskiy District Court in Zhytomyr. 38. As of June 2014 the case was pending before 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'}

6. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Skopje. 7. On 6 December 2010 a three-judge panel of the Skopje Court of Appeal, presided over by the applicant (including Judges I.L. and M.S.), decided, in second instance, to grant an appeal of a detainee. The panel accepted a proposed bail and replaced an order for detention on remand with an order for house arrest (Ксж.бр. 537/2010). On 9 December 2010 the State Public Prosecutor challenged this decision by means of a request for the protection of legality (барање за заштита на законитоста). He sought that the Supreme Court declared that decision unlawful and that it be remitted for fresh consideration. 8. On 10 December 2010 a five-judge panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Judge J.V., the President of the Supreme Court at the time, held a session at which the public prosecutor’s request was examined. The Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor’s amended request (преиначено) and stated inter alia that: “The Supreme Court finds that Skopje Court of Appeal, which decided the appeal ... against the decision ... in which the Skopje Court of First Instance had dismissed a request for termination of pre-trial detention (предлог за укинување на мерката притвор) as unsubstantiated, had no statutory ground to decide the complaints on the merits, but, on the contrary, it was bound by law to establish that the appeal ... was inadmissible ...” 9. On 10 December 2010 the criminal division of the Supreme Court composed of six judges of that court, including Judge J.V. (see section 39(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, paragraph 22 below), held a session at which they discussed the case Ксж.бр. 537/2010. Following an examination of the record of the deliberations of the Skopje Court of Appeal regarding the decision of 6 December 2010 (see paragraph 7 above), the criminal division of the Supreme Court concluded that two judges had disclosed professional misconduct. The relevant part of the record of that session reads as follows: “... the criminal division of the Supreme Court unanimously found (едногласно се донесе заклучок) that there had been professional misconduct by two judges of the Skopje Court of Appeal who had adjudicated in the case Ксж.бр. 537/2010. The President of the Supreme Court, J.V., then closed the session of the criminal division.” 10. In submissions of the same date, Judge J.V., as an ex officio member of the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”, see Amendment XXVIII to the Constitution, paragraph 19 below), requested that the SJC establish professional misconduct in respect of the applicant and Judge I.L. This request was submitted pursuant to sections 78 and 79 of the State Judicial Act 2010 (“the Act”, see paragraph 20 below) according to which a member of the SJC or the president of the higher court can seek that professional misconduct proceedings were launched regarding a judge. As stated in the request, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant and Judge I.L. had exercised the office of judge in an unprofessional and unconscientious manner given that they had voted in favour of the decision of 6 December 2010 in the criminal case Ксж.бр. 537/2010, which had been in violation of the Criminal Proceedings Act. In support, he submitted copies of the decisions of 6 and 10 December 2010 (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above). 11. On 23 December 2010 the plenary of the SJC, including Judge J.V., discussed Judge J.V.’s request for determination of professional misconduct on the part of the applicant and accepted it as timely, complete and admissible. It also set up a Commission for determination of professional misconduct by the applicant (“the Commission”), composed of five of its members, including the President of the SJC (see section 80 of the Act, paragraph 20 below). The composition of the Commission did not include Judge J.V. 12. On 29 December 2010 the Commission communicated Judge J.V.’s request and the supporting evidence to the applicant. On 18 January 2011 the applicant responded in writing and provided evidence in support (see section 81 of the Act, paragraph 20 below). Judge I.L. resigned in the meantime. After the Commission had obtained the material in the case Ксж.бр. 537/2010, on 14 January 2011 it submitted a report to the (plenary of the) SJC as to whether Judge J.V.’s request was justified. 13. On 23 February 2010, the plenary of the SJC, including Judge J.V., initiated professional misconduct proceedings against the applicant and temporarily suspended him from the office of judge. In the decision, the SJC relied on sections 84 and 86 of the Act (see paragraph 20 below). The relevant parts of this decision read as follows: “The SJC, on the basis of (Judge J.V.’s) request ... set up (the Commission) ... After the Commission had taken actions pursuant to sections 81 and 82 of (the Act), it submitted, under section 83 of (the Act), to the SJC a report as to whether the request was justified. The SJC ... discussed the request and the Commission’s proposal and decided to initiate professional misconduct proceedings ...” 14. On 19 April 2011 the Commission held, pursuant to section 87 of the Act (see paragraph 20 below), a hearing. As noted in the record of the hearing, it was attended by the applicant and his legal representative, as well as by Judge J.V. as complainant. Judge J.V.stated inter alia that: “... I submitted the request (for determination of unprofessional and unconscientious exercise of the office of judge regarding the applicant) for the following reasons: (the applicant), as the chairman of the panel and a judge rapporteur (in the case Ксж.бр. 537/2010) and judge I.L., as a member of that panel, contrary to (the Criminal Proceedings Act) ... had unlawfully decided on the merits ... they had no statutory ground to decide on the merits of the complaints raised in the appeal, but they were bound by law to reject the appeal as inadmissible. For these reasons, I consider that in this case ... there are grounds [to be established that there was] unprofessional and unconscientious exercise of the office of judge ... I must underline that I submitted this request to the SJC in view of the conclusion of the criminal division of the Supreme Court of 10 December 2010 [see paragraph 9 above] ...” 15. After the applicant had presented his arguments verbally, the President of the Commission put several questions to him. The applicant’s lawyer and judge J.V. did not put any questions notwithstanding that they were provided with such an opportunity. Then, the applicant and judge J.V. made concluding remarks. The record of the hearing indicated that under section 92 of the Act (see paragraph 20 below), the Commission would draw up a report, which would be communicated to the SJC for consideration. The record of the hearing was signed by the applicant, judge J.V., as the complainant, and the members of the Commission (see section 90 of the Act, paragraph 20 below). As evident from the available material, the Commission submitted such a report in which it proposed that the SJC dismiss the applicant for professional misconduct. 16. On 18 May 2011 the plenary of the SJC, which included judge J.V., dismissed the applicant from the office of judge for professional misconduct. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “The SJC finds that Skopje Court of Appeal had no statutory ground to examine and decide on the merits of the complaints raised in the appeal [in the criminal case Ксж.бр. 537/2010], but it was bound by law to establish that the accused’s appeal submitted by his lawyer had been inadmissible. Accordingly, it decided in violation to (the Criminal Proceedings Act). ... Such a decision is unlawful and contrary to [relevant provisions of the Criminal Proceedings Act] ... ... When establishing unprofessional and unconscientious exercise of the office of judge [by the applicant], the SJC relied, as a legal ground, on the judgment of the Supreme Court [see paragraph 8 above] and the conclusion of the criminal division of the Supreme Court of 10 December 2010 [see paragraph 9 above]. The (criminal) division explicitly established that (the applicant), as chairman of the panel and a judge rapporteur, ... had been unprofessional and decided contrary to [the relevant provisions of the Criminal Proceedings Act] ...” 17. The applicant appealed against that decision before the second-instance body, namely an Appeal Panel formed within the Supreme Court on an ad hoc basis in each case separately and composed, as specified in section 96 of the Act (see paragraph 20 below), of nine judges, of whom three were to be Supreme Court judges, four Appeal Court judges and two judges of the court of the applicant. He also sought withdrawal of judge J.V. and all the Supreme Court judges. In support he stated that there was a conflict of interest, as judge J.V. had sought his dismissal and had later voted for it as an ex officio member of the SJC. The position he held was such that he could influence other judges of that court. 18. On 13 September 2011 the Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal and confirmed the SJC’s decision dismissing him from the office of judge. It also refused his request for the withdrawal of judges. It found that it was the plenary of the Supreme Court, and not the Appeal Panel, which had competence to decide on the applicant’s request for the withdrawal of the President of the Supreme Court. Relying on the Civil Proceedings Act it further rejected as inadmissible the applicant’s request for the withdrawal of all the judges of a 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, who was born in 1943, lives in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. She is the mother of Mr Apti Islamov, who was born in 1977 (in the documents submitted also stated as 1976) and Mr Said-Emi (also spelled as Said-Emin) Islamov, who was born in 1981. 6. At the material time the brothers Mr Apti Islamov and Mr Said-Emi Islamov worked as policemen at the Zavodskoy district department of the interior (the ROVD) in Grozny. 7. On 14 October 2000 the two brothers were driving from Grozny to Urus-Martan in “Volga” car with their colleagues Mr Sh. Gadayev and Mr A. Shovkhalov. Their vehicle was stopped by servicemen at checkpoint number 160 (in the documents submitted also referred to as checkpoint no. 160-44, checkpoint no. 104, checkpoint no. 152 and checkpoint no. 140) situated next to the Chernorechye village on the south-west outskirts of Grozny. At the material time the checkpoint was staffed by police officers from the Special Task Unit (the OMON) of the Ryazan region of Russia. 8. The four men were arrested in the presence of a number of their colleagues from the Zavodskoy ROVD who were crossing the checkpoint at the same time. One of the servicemen introduced himself as “Alexei” and informed the colleagues of the detained men that their arrest had been ordered by a commander with call-name “Chelsea”. 9. At about 6 p.m. two APCs and two UAZ vehicles with a group of armed servicemen arrived at the checkpoint. The servicemen in the APCs, who were wearing black masks, threatened to shoot the ROVD colleagues of the detained and forced them to leave while the four arrested men, including Mr Apti Islamov and Said-Emi Islamov, remained at the checkpoint. The four men have gone missing since. 10. The Zavodskoy ROVD in Grozny was immediately informed about the arrest of its four employees at the checkpoint. 11. The Government submitted copies of the documents from the criminal case file no. 13004 opened into the abduction of Mr Apti Islamov and Mr Said-Emi Islamov, Mr Gadayev and Mr Shovkhalov. The relevant information may be summarised as follows. 12. On 17 October 2000 the head of the Grozny town administration complained on behalf of the applicant to the Grozny prosecutor’s office about the abduction of her sons by State servicemen. 13. On 24 October 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office took statements from seven on-duty officers who had manned the checkpoint no. 160 on the day of the abduction: Mr M.A., Mr A.P., Mr A.S., Mr A.Ma., Mr S.S., Mr A.Sh. and Mr M.K. All of the officers stated that on 14 October 2000 in the early afternoon they had been ordered by the commander to stop the black “Volga” car and arrest its passengers and wait for the arrival of the assault team. They had stopped the car with four men in it. The four men had identified themselves as police officers from the Zavodskoy ROVD and showed their service identity cards. The on-duty checkpoint servicemen had searched the car and asked the four men to wait. Afterwards, officers from the Main Intelligence Service (the GRU) and the Oktyabrskiy temporary district department of the interior (the VOVD) in two APCs and two UAZ vehicles had arrived at the checkpoint. They had put the four men in one of the APCs and driven away to an unknown destination. 14. On 27 October 2000 the head of the Zavodskoy ROVD complained about the abduction of their four employees to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 and requested assistance in establishing the whereabouts of the missing men. 15. On 22 December 2000 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the abduction under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). The case file was given the number 13004. 16. On 20 January 2001 the investigators questioned several officers from the Zavodskoy ROVD who witnessed the abduction of their four colleagues at the checkpoint. Their statements corroborated the applicant’s account of the events submitted to the Court. 17. On an unspecified date in 2001 the Zavodskoy ROVD informed the investigators that the four men had been detained on 14 October 2000 for their failure to comply with the order to stop at the checkpoint and then taken to the Oktyabrskiy ROVD. 18. On 22 May 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. Her statement was similar to the account submitted before the Court. 19. On the same date, 22 May 2003, the investigator examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 20. On various dates in May and June 2003 the investigators questioned a number of relatives of the four abducted men and their colleagues all whom gave statements corroborating the applicant’s account submitted to the Court. 21. On 23 December 2003 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 19 January 2004. 22. On 23 November 2004 the investigators, in the resumed investigation, again questioned several relatives of the abducted men. No new information was obtained. 23. On 23 December 2004 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof. 24. On 16 February 2005 the investigation was resumed by the deputy Zavodskoy district prosecutor. He stated that the proceedings had been suspended prematurely and instructed the investigators to take a number of steps, including establishing more witnesses to the abduction from the officers who had manned the checkpoint. 25. On 17 February 2005 the applicant complained to the Chechen President of her sons’ abduction by the GRU servicemen from the checkpoint. She provided a detailed description of the incident and stated that shortly after the abduction her sons had been allegedly seen detained in a pit on the premises of the military base in Khankala, Chechnya. She further stated that the investigation had been suspended prematurely and requested that it be resumed. On 26 February 2005 this complaint was forwarded to the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office for examination. 26. On various dates in February 2005 the investigators questioned five police officers from the Ryazan region, Mr A.S., Mr A.Ma., Mr M.K. Mr M.A. and Mr S.S., who had manned the checkpoint on the date of the abduction. All of the witnesses stated that the four detained men had been placed in APCs and taken away by unidentified servicemen from the FSS (the Federal Security Service) and the GRU. 27. On 16 March 2005 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof on 30 August 2005. 28. On 25 September 2005, upon the applicant’s request to this end, the Zavodskoy district prosecutor examined the investigation file in criminal case no. 13004 and concluded that the decision to suspend the proceedings had been substantiated and lawful. 29. On various dates between 2005 and 2006 the applicant along with relatives of Mr Gadayev and Mr Shovkhalov forwarded numerous requests to various prosecutors’ offices and other authorities asking for information on the progress in the investigation and requesting assistance in their search for the abducted men. 30. On 23 July 2009 the deputy Zavodskoy district prosecutor criticized the progress of the investigation in criminal case no. 13004 and ordered that a number of steps be taken. In particular, he ordered that the investigators questioned a number of witnesses to the arrest, verified information concerning the alleged detention of the applicant’s sons in Khankala and identified the officer who had ordered to stop the abducted men’s vehicle at the checkpoint. 31. On 31 July 2009 the investigation was resumed; then on 3 September 2009 the proceedings were again suspended and then resumed on 4 August 2011. It’s unclear whether the applicant was informed thereof. 32. From the documents submitted it follows that the investigation is still pending. 33. The Government did not dispute the circumstances of the abduction as presented by the applicant but denied any involvement of State agents into the incident. At the same time, in their observations of 7 February 2012 the Government stated, amongst other things, the following: “58. [...] the investigation obtained evidence demonstrating that ... Mr Said-Emin Islamov, Mr Apti Islamov... could have been detained by State representatives [...]” ... “[75.] ... the investigaiton established that Mr Gadayev, Mr Shovkhalov, Mr Apti Islamov and Mr Said-Emin Islamov had been detained by persons who had introduced themselves as representatives of power structures. However, it is impossible to establish whether the detention was indeed carried out by representatives of law‑enforcement agencies, whether it was in violation of the relevant procedure or whether physical force was applied against the disappeared men ...”.

{'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 1929 and lived in Moiano. 6. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 7. The applicant was the owner of a plot of land in Moiano. The land in issue was recorded on the land register as folio no. 11, parcels no. 392 and 396. 8. On 18 June 1987, a decree authorising the Moiano Municipality to take possession of a portion of the applicants’ land was issued for a period of three years, through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public-interest declaration, in order to begin the construction of a road. 9. On 14 July 1987 the authorities took physical possession of the land. 10. By a writ served on 1 October 1990, the applicant brought an action for damages against the Moiano Municipality before the Benevento District Court. He alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation. He claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation. 11. On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land. In a report submitted in September 1992, the expert concluded that the occupied land covered a surface area of 109 square metres. The expert further concluded that the market value of the land on the date the land had been irreversibly transformed, which he identified as having occurred in May 1998, corresponded to 50,000 Italian lire (ITL) (EUR 25.80) per square metre. 12. By a judgment delivered on 9 March 2005 and filed with the court registry on 18 March 2005, the Benevento District Court declared that the possession of the land, which had been initially authorised, had become unlawful as of 14 July 1990. It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works. As a result, in accordance with the constructive-expropriation rule (occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita), the applicants had been deprived of their property, by virtue of its irreversible alteration, on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful. In the light of those considerations, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation. 13. The court drew on the expert valuation and considered that the market value of the land, which in 1998 corresponded to ITL 50,000 (EUR 25.82) per square metre, corresponded to ITL 57,000 (EUR 29.43) per square metre on the date the occupation had become unlawful in 1990. 14. The court held that the applicant was entitled to compensation, calculated in accordance with Law no. 662 of 1996, which had entered into force in the meantime, in the sum of ITL 2,997,500 (equivalent to EUR 1,548.08), to be adjusted for inflation, plus statutory interest. 15. The court further awarded the applicant ITL 408,750 (equivalent to EUR 211.10) as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation (June 1987) until the date of loss of ownership (July 1990), as well as ITL 5,000,000 (EUR 2,582.28) for the damage caused by the building works and ITL 3,000,000 (EUR 1,549.37) as compensation for the decrease in the value of the adjoining land. 16. The judgment became final in May 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 first two applicants were born in 1939 and 1964 respectively. They are father and daughter. The last two applicants, who are husband and wife, were born in 1951 and 1946 respectively. All the four applicants live in Rivne, Ukraine. 6. Early on the morning of 24 December 1989, the first applicant and his wife, Ms Nadejda Stepanovna Melnichuk, who was the mother of the second applicant – at that time both citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (“USSR”) – were driving through southern Romania, heading home after a trip to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, together with the third and fourth applicants. They were driving in a column of five cars which were transporting fifteen Soviet citizens in total. 7. At the same time, a Romanian army unit from Craiova had been notified by an unidentified person from the Border Police of Drobeta Turnu Severin that a column of foreign cars was driving from Drobeta Turnu Severin towards Craiova. At the time of the events, the former President Ceauşescu had just been toppled and there were allegedly persistent news reports that terrorists were trying to reinstate the regime. 8. Suspecting that the foreign cars belonged to the so-called terrorists, a team of soldiers was dispatched by Colonel C. – the commander of the army unit of Craiova, who later became general and commander-in-chief of the Romanian Army – to block the road in the nearby of the village of Brădeşti, on the viaduct named Valea rea. The unit was led by Lieutenant Colonel S. The road was blocked by two armoured vans, between which only a single car could pass. 9. The column of cars reached the blockade, followed by a local bus. The soldiers asked the passengers several times, in Romanian, to get out of the cars and surrender. As the tourists did not understand what was happening, they did not get out of the cars. During the domestic inquiry, the applicants and the other persons in the cars submitted that the shooting had started without any prior warning. The passengers in the cars started screaming in Russian that they were Soviet tourists. The applicants and the other persons travelling in the column tried to turn back the cars. After a brief pause, the soldiers started shooting again. The first applicant’s wife was shot in the head and the passenger sitting behind her – namely the third applicant – was wounded by bullets, as was the fourth applicant. 10. Those who were not wounded started to run away from the cars and tried to hide by the side of the road. At that moment a third round of shooting started. One of the five cars caught fire. Then the shooting stopped and the soldiers approached the cars. The first applicant tried to explain that they were tourists. 11. Several bullets also hit the local bus and wounded a passenger who was going to his workplace in Craiova. 12. After a while, the first applicant and his wife, together with the third and fourth applicants, were taken to a nearby hospital. The first applicant submits that he was called a terrorist by the Romanian soldiers, who pushed him around. 13. Ms Melnichuk was operated on the same day but fell into a coma. On 9 January 1990 she was transferred to a hospital in Bucharest, where she eventually died on 8 February 1990. The medical certificate issued in respect of her death stated that it had been caused by wounds inflicted by gunfire. 14. The second applicant travelled to Bucharest to bring back her mother’s body. 15. On 9 January 1990 the third applicant, who had been wounded in her spine, was transferred to a hospital in Moscow, due to her serious medical condition. She never recovered completely and is recognised as a disabled person. From a forensic report dated 6 February 1990, it appears that the third applicant needed 25-30 days of medical care. 16. The fourth applicant, who was shot in his left shoulder, was able to leave hospital and go back home to Rivne on 29 December 1989. From a forensic report dated 6 February 1990, it appears that the fourth applicant needed 8-10 days of medical care. 17. From the investigation carried out by the Romanian authorities it appears that on this occasion two persons died – the first two applicants’ close relative and B.M.K – and seven persons from the car column were wounded, namely the last two applicants, N.G.S., I.A.L., A.C., S.F.D. and S.K. 2. Criminal investigation into these events (a) First decision not to institute criminal proceedings quashed by the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice 18. On 28 December 1989 the USSR citizens involved in the above‑mentioned events, including the third and fourth applicants, addressed a complaint to the consular authorities of the USSR Embassy in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. A complaint was also brought on behalf of the first applicant and his wife, who were still hospitalised in Romania and could not personally sign it. 19. The military prosecutor’s office in Craiova opened a criminal investigation with file no. 211/P/1990. 20. It appears from documents submitted by the respondent Government that during 1990 several investigative measures were instituted. Some of the victims, including the first applicant and some witnesses were questioned by the investigative authorities between 28 December 1989 and 12 February 1990. 21. The officer who gave the order to open fire wrote a report on the events which was included in the file. 22. On 20 February 1990, the USSR Embassy in Bucharest addressed an inquiry to the Romanian authorities concerning the progress of the investigations. 23. On 27 February 1990, Colonel C. – the commander of the military unit of Craiova, who had given the order for the army intervention at Brădeşti – was questioned as a witness with regard to these events. He stated that, following the phone call received from the Border Police of Drobeta Turnu Severin concerning the column of cars heading towards Craiova, he had supposed (“am bănuit”) that they were terrorists and had ordered them to be stopped before they reach Craiova. 24. Medical certificates were handed over to the investigation authorities in respect of the wounds inflicted on the tourists. A technical report was drawn up evaluating the damage to the cars involved in the incident. 25. Statements were taken from the military staff involved in the incident, namely the army unit which had dispatched the team of soldiers to Brădeşti. 26. Between 11 and 26 April 1990, with the assistance of the USSR Embassy, all the victims were interviewed in their country by a Soviet prosecutor and their statements were handed over to the Romanian authorities on 16 May 1990. 27. On this occasion, all the victims requested civil compensation for the damaged suffered in the incident. 28. On 22 August 1990, additional investigative measures were ordered by a military prosecutor, but it appears that none was taken. 29. By a decision of 14 August 1991, the prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds that the shooting had taken place as the result of fortuitous circumstances: the soldiers had been led to believe that the tourists were terrorists, so that when the tourists failed to respond to the order to get out of the cars and surrender, they had given the soldiers an impression of imminent danger. 30. The above-mentioned decision was automatically subject to review by the relevant Section of the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice (Secţia Parchetelor Militare, “SPM”). On 28 September 1992, the SPM requested additional investigative measures. 31. On 11 April 1994, the military prosecutor’s office in Craiova asked SPM for guidance in conducting the impugned investigations. 32. In a decision of 30 May 1994, the SPM quashed the 1991 decision not to institute criminal proceedings. In so ruling, the prosecutor found that there had been no justification for the order to open fire, taking into account that the tourists were not armed and had not presented any immediate danger. It was emphasised that the second round of shooting had taken place when the cars were stationary and the passengers were trying to hide in the immediate surroundings environment. He considered that the order to shoot had constituted a criminal act and that any fear that the soldiers might have experienced could not have amounted to a circumstance capable of removing criminal liability. It was therefore ordered to institute criminal proceedings against Lieutenant Colonel S. for aggravated murder. 33. The file was sent back to the military prosecutor’s office in Craiova on 22 June 1994. (b) The investigation conducted after June 1994 in respect of Lieutenant Colonel S., who was promoted to Colonel 34. On 29 June 1994, the military prosecutor’s office wrote to the commander of the army unit of Craiova asking him to ensure that Lieutenant Colonel S. would be present for questioning on 5 July 1994, and to hand over his last three appraisal reports. 35. Colonel S. failed to appear before the military prosecutor on 5 July 1994. The appraisal reports had been sent to the military prosecutor’s office. They showed that S. had been upgraded to colonel. 36. On 13 January 1997, the Military Prosecutor’s Office in Craiova found that it was not competent to decide the case and referred it to the military prosecutor’s office at the Military Court (Tribunalul Militar Teritorial). 37. On 31 March 1997, the military prosecutor’s office wrote again to the commander of the army unit of Craiova reminding him of his previous letter of 29 June 1994 and asking him to ensure that officer S. be present for questioning on 7 April 1997. 38. On 7 April 1997, Colonel S. was formally notified of the criminal charge brought against him and gave a statement before the military prosecutor. He stated that he had not initially ordered the shooting but that it had been a spontaneous reaction by another soldier. He also stated that he had joined in the first round of firing, that he had personally spent 14 cartridges and that he had subsequently ordered the second round of firing. 39. It appears also from the case file that in 1997 Colonel S. underwent a psychiatric evaluation. A medical report was delivered in this respect on 28 May 1997 stating that Colonel S. had a normal representation of the consequences of his acts. 40. After considering a complaint lodged by Colonel S., by a decision of 12 August 1998 the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the partial annulment of the decision of 13 January 1997. It was considered that the criminal investigation should not have been limited to Colonel S., as other persons might also have been involved. The prosecutor indicated that the criminal investigation needed to elucidate all the circumstances of the events and, on the basis of the results thus obtained, criminal proceedings should be initiated against all relevant persons. It was therefore ordered that the criminal investigation should be in rem. It was further indicated that the decision should be communicated to all interested parties. 41. The decision was communicated to Colonel S, but not to the victims. (c) The status of the criminal investigation after August 1998; joinder to the main investigation into the military events of December 1989 in Romania 42. Following the decision of 12 August 1998, it appears from the case file submitted by the responding Government that no investigative measures were taken between September 1998 and December 2004. 43. On 13 January 2005, the military prosecutor’s office at the Military Court ordered the discontinuation of the criminal investigation on the grounds that the criminal liability was time‑barred. 44. On 2 September 2005, A.C. and K.C., two of the victims of the shooting of 24 December 1989, lodged a complaint against the decision of 13 January 2005 with the higher prosecutor. 45. By a decision of 4 April 2007, the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice quashed the decision of 13 January 2005, indicating that – given the fact that in 1994 criminal proceedings had been instituted against Colonel S. and several procedural acts had been taken in connection therewith – the running of the statutory time-limit had been interrupted and criminal liability was therefore not time-barred. It was also decided that the investigation file should be joined to the main criminal investigation file concerning the December 1989 events, namely case file no. 97/P/1990. Lastly, it decided that the criminal charges previously brought against Colonel S. should be resumed and that investigations continue in this respect. (d) Developments in the investigation related to case no. 97/P/1990 46. According to the facts established by the Court in the case of the Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 34-41, 24 May 2011), several criminal investigations into the fatal crackdown on the demonstrations of December 1989, which had initially been conducted separately, were joined to the investigation that was the subject matter of case no. 97/P/1990. In this case, by a previous decision of 7 December 2004, the military prosecutor’s office had ordered the indictment of 102 persons, principally officers from the Army, police and Securitate forces – including some high-ranking ones – for murder (Articles 174-176 of the Criminal Code), genocide (Article 357 of the Criminal Code), inhuman treatment (Article 358 of the Criminal Code), attempts to commit those acts, complicity and instigation in the commission of the above acts and participation in them, acts committed “during the period from 21 to 30 December 1989”. Sixteen civilians, including a former President of Romania and a former Head of the Romanian Intelligence Service, had been also charged. 47. A letter of 22 May 2009 from the military prosecuting authorities indicates that 126 decisions to discontinue proceedings, issued in the separate investigations, were set aside and the relevant files joined to case no. 97/P/1990. After the initial decisions to discontinue proceedings had been set aside, investigations concerning several hundred victims who had been killed or injured during the period from 21 to 30 December 1989 in various areas of the country were also joined to case no. 97/P/1990. 48. In a previous letter of 5 June 2008, the head prosecutor of the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice indicated that during the period from 2005 to 2007, 6,370 persons had been questioned in case no. 97/P/1990. In addition, 1,100 ballistics reports had been prepared, more than 10,000 investigative measures had been instituted and 1,000 on‑site inquiries had been conducted. He also stated that “among the reasons for the delay [in the investigation], mention should be made of the repetitive measures... concerning the transfer of the case from one prosecutor to another..., the fact that the prosecutors did not promptly inform the injured parties about the decisions to discontinue proceedings... and the fact that the investigation had been reopened several years after the persons concerned had filed their complaints...; the lack of cooperation on the part of the institutions involved in the crackdown of December 1989..., the extreme complexity of the investigation... given that the necessary investigative measures had not been conducted immediately after the impugned homicides and ill-treatment...”. The above-cited letter mentioned another reason for the delay, namely decision no. 610/2007 of the Constitutional Court of 16 July 2007, which withdrew jurisdiction to conduct investigations in case no. 97/P/1990 from the military prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice and transferred it to the civil prosecutors, that is, to the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. In the opinion of the head of the military prosecutor’s office, as stated in the above-cited letter of 5 June 2008, the transfer of the case was sufficient to cause new delays in the proceedings, given the significant volume of the case file, the complexity of the case and the time that had elapsed since the events under investigation. 49. By a decision of 15 January 2008, the military prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided to sever the investigation concerning the sixteen civilian defendants (including a former President of Romania and a former Head of the Romanian Intelligence Service) from the investigation involving military personnel, and to relinquish its jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 50. According to a press release issued on 10 February 2009 by the Public Information Office at the High Council of the Judiciary, the President of the Council intended to ask the Judicial Inspection Board to identify the reasons which had prevented the criminal investigation from being conducted rapidly. (e) Latest developments concerning the applicants in the present case 51. In August 2008, the applicants petitioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and the General Prosecutor Office in order to get information about the investigation. Their petition remained unanswered. 52. Two subsequent decisions of 18 October 2010 and 15 April 2011 mentioned by the Government, but not submitted to the Court, were delivered by the Romanian authorities. These decisions were not communicated to the applicants. 53. According to the Government, on 18 October 2010 the military prosecutor in charge of the investigation decided to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the events that had taken place on 24 December 1989 in Brădeşti. On 15 April 2011, the aforementioned decision was also quashed and a new case was registered with the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice under no. 706/P/2011. 54 According to the information submitted by the Government, the investigations are still pending.

{'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'}