Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Karel Jungwiert;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Snejana Botoucharova;Volodymyr Butkevych

The first CARDINAL applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , and DATE seventh applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The date of birth of the fourth applicant is unknown . The applicants live in the village of ORG in LOC . This district borders on GPE .

The facts of the case as submitted by the parties are summarised in section A below ( paragraphs CARDINAL ) . A description of the documents submitted by the Government is contained in section B below ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The first applicant is the mother of PERSON , born in DATE , and of the third and fourth applicants . The second applicant is the mother of PERSON , born in DATE , and of the fifth and sixth applicants . The seventh applicant was married to PERSON .

PERSON and PERSON were married and had CARDINAL and CARDINAL children respectively . At the material time both men lived in GPE and went to ORG in DATE to help their families with seasonal agricultural work .

The facts surrounding the death of the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives are disputed by the parties .

The applicants did not witness the events described below and the following account is based on eyewitness statements submitted by them .

In DATE the residents of ORG were cutting grass . The work was done collectively by all villagers in small groups of CARDINAL to CARDINAL people .

On DATE CARDINAL people divided into small groups were working in the surrounding hills . CARDINAL of the groups was formed by PERSON , PERSON , their cousin PERSON , and CARDINAL men who had come to ORG as internally displaced persons from GPE – FAC , PERSON , and PERSON .

Aslambek Imagamayev stated that while working they had seen several helicopters bombing a forest area near the village of GPE in GPE , QUANTITY away from them .

Around CARDINAL or TIME the group in which the applicants’ relatives were working had decided to go home for lunch , when CARDINAL military helicopters appeared from the direction of GPE and started circling low above the field . PERSON identified them as ORG . CARDINAL of the helicopters fired a burst from an aircraft machine - gun at a spot situated QUANTITY from the men . They were scared and , throwing down their scythes , ran to a white GPE car and drove down the hill in the direction of ORG . ORG and PERSON claimed that the helicopters had flown away but then reappeared and the men saw them right above the car , hovering at low altitude . They stopped the vehicle and ran for cover in different directions .

The helicopters launched non - guided missiles and strafed the FAC car with aircraft machine - guns with the result that its back tyres were flattened . They then chased the men . CARDINAL of the helicopters fired a missile at the place where PERSON and PERSON were hiding . They were both killed and PERSON , who was nearby , was wounded by shrapnel in his leg .

Aslambek Imagamayev stated that he had run through the forest to tell the villagers what had happened . He stated that he had heard the helicopters shooting for some time . ORG testified that he had run towards the river and had hidden there in a bush . He estimated that the attack on the FAC car had continued for TIME . After the helicopters had left , he returned to the vehicle and found the bodies of PERSON and PERSON QUANTITY away from the car .

The bodies were taken to the village in the damaged ORG .

NORP The attack and the deaths were reported by human rights NGOs and the NORP mass - media in DATE .

According to the Government , since the beginning of the counter - terrorist operation within the territory of GPE , the civil and military authorities had taken all necessary steps to secure the safety of civilians residing in LOC . The residents of GPE had been notified , through the television and press , of the risk of being at the administrative border with GPE as well as of the actions they should perform when in the area of a counter - terrorist operation so as to indicate that they did not belong to illegal armed groups . In particular , once they had established “ visual contact ” with representatives of the federal forces , residents were supposed to stop moving , mark themselves with a piece of white cloth and wait for the arrival of a group of servicemen for an identity check .

On DATE the authorities carried out a special operation aimed at searching for the base camp , QUANTITY to the south of the village of ORG , of a group of CARDINAL illegal fighters , who were to be detained . The operation was planned and commanded by senior officers of ORG of ORG ( ORG группировка войск ORG группировки войск ) . The ORG refused to indicate the names of those officers or provide details of the operation , stating that disclosure of the information might be harmful to the ORG ’s national security interests . According to them , “ in the materials of the preliminary investigation file there was no information ” as to whether the residents of ORG had been warned in advance about the operation in question , or whether the military personnel involved had been instructed to avoid civilian casualties .

During the operation , a federal transport MI-CARDINAL helicopter was hit by fire from members of illegal armed groups in the vicinity of the village of ORG and crashed to the ground . Orders were given to evacuate the crew and servicemen on board the helicopter from the site of the crash . The Government alleged , with reference to the findings of ORG , that servicemen who had arrived to evacuate those injured also came under fire from illegal fighters . The airspace above the area of the rescue operation was patrolled in shifts by a pair of military MI-CARDINAL helicopters .

At TIME , while patrolling over the area situated QUANTITY to the west of ORG and QUANTITY from the site of the crash of the MI-CARDINAL helicopter , the pilots of the MI-CARDINAL helicopters saw a FAC car and a group of CARDINAL men with light machine - guns . In the ORG ’s submission , the pilots observed the men through a target control system of tenfold magnification , from a distance of QUANTITY and at an altitude of QUANTITY .

According to the ORG , the pilots reported this to the command centre and having received the respective order fired warning shots at a spot situated QUANTITY away from the car and the people . The men immediately got into the car and started driving away , instead of staying where they were and waiting for the arrival of ground troops for an identity check . The pilots again reported to their superiors , received the respective order and fired warning shots for the second time , but the car continued moving . In order to prevent the FAC car with unidentified armed men inside from driving further without authorisation in the close vicinity of the zone of the rescue operation , the pilots , pursuant to their ORG order , fired at the car with the result that PERSON and PERSON were killed and PERSON was wounded .

The Government also submitted that “ there was no information in the materials of the preliminary investigation file ” as to whether the attacked men had used the firearms against the pilots , and that “ according to its technical description , a light machine - gun [ was ] ineffective for hitting a target at a distance of QUANTITY ” .

According to the ORG , after the rescue operation in respect of the crashed MI-CARDINAL helicopter had been completed , the servicemen had inspected the area near the crash site and found a Niva car as well as hand grenades , spent cartridges from light machine - guns and a bloodstained ammunition belt near the car .

In TIME CARDINAL DATE several officials from the prosecutor ’s office of LOC ( прокуратура Сунженского района – “ ORG Office ” ) and the prosecutor ’s office of GPE ( прокуратура PERSON DATE “ ORG ” ) arrived at the scene of the incident . They also brought a forensic expert from the city of GPE , in GPE . The officials questioned the witnesses to the attack , inspected the scene of the incident and collected pieces of shrapnel and damaged scythes . No firearms or ammunition were found at the scene of the incident . The officials also examined the bodies and noted the wounds caused by shrapnel and by large - calibre guns .

According to the applicants , at the same time the head of the village administration contacted the military authorities . CARDINAL armoured personnel carriers with servicemen arrived in the village , and together with some local officials they proceeded to the site , but soon afterwards the local officials returned because the military allegedly refused to proceed further .

The Government submitted that on DATE , on the basis of the information received from the ORG administration , ORG had instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( a ) and ( f ) of LAW ( murder of CARDINAL or more persons committed by a generally dangerous method ) . The case file was assigned the number DATE . After the initial investigative measures had been taken , the case was transferred to military prosecutors and given the number DATE .

According to the applicants , in the absence of any news of the investigation for DATE after the incident , they applied to ORG and then to ORG . They were informed that a criminal investigation had been opened on DATE and that the case file had been given the number DATE . In reply to their subsequent requests to the prosecutors at various levels the applicants received hardly any substantive information about the investigation into the attack . On several occasions they received copies of letters by which their requests had been forwarded to different ORG offices .

On DATE the Chief Military Prosecutor ’s Office ( Главная военная прокуратура ) , in reply to a request made by a deputy of ORG from ORG on the ORG behalf , stated that the criminal investigation into the killing of QUANTITY persons near the village of ORG had been supervised by the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG ( военная прокуратура Северо-Кавказского военного округа ) and that he would be informed of any results of the investigation .

On DATE the preliminary investigation into the attack of CARDINAL DATE was stayed for failure to identify those responsible . It was then resumed on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . It does not appear that the applicants were informed of any of those decisions .

On DATE the applicants were informed by ORG that on CARDINAL DATE the file in case no . DATE had been transferred for investigation to garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL военная прокуратура гарнизона ) in GPE , GPE .

On DATE a person acting as the applicants’ representative went to PERSON to find out about the investigation . There he submitted an application stating the facts of the attack and asking for an update on the investigation . An officer of the prosecutor ’s office showed him a register of cases , according to which the case had been transferred to a military prosecutor in NORP , GPE , for further investigation .

On DATE the representative went to NORP and talked to the military prosecutor , who informed him that the case had been sent to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE ( военная прокуратура DATE ) based in GPE , the main NORP military base in GPE . On DATE the representative filed a request for an update on the investigation , on the second applicant ’s behalf .

On DATE the second applicant wrote to the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE . She stated the facts of the case , referred to the number of the criminal investigation file communicated to her by ORG and asked for an update on the investigation . She also requested that she be granted the status of victim in the proceedings . According to the second applicant , she received no reply to that letter .

On DATE the investigating authorities again suspended the investigation on account of failure to identify the alleged perpetrators . It appears that this decision was then quashed by superior prosecutors twice , on DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs DATE CARDINAL below ) . It does not appear that the applicants were notified of any of those decisions .

On DATE the fourth applicant was informed by the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE that his complaint had been added to the criminal investigation file opened in relation to his brother ’s death . The date of the fourth applicant ’s complaint was not specified .

On DATE the second applicant wrote to the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE and to the military prosecutor of ORG . She enquired about developments in the investigation and requested that she and the first applicant be declared victims , in accordance with LAW . She received no reply to those queries , apart from a letter of DATE by which the military prosecutor of ORG informed her that her letter had been forwarded to garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL in GPE .

On DATE the civil registration office for LOC issued death certificates numbered CARDINAL and CARDINAL for PERSON and PERSON respectively . The date and place of death for both was recorded DATE , village of ORG , ORG .

On DATE the investigating authorities took a decision by which the criminal proceedings in connection with the events of CARDINAL DATE were discontinued in part , as regards the superior ORG order to attack the FAC car , as there was no evidence of a crime in their actions , and another decision ordering that the criminal proceedings be closed as a whole in the absence of evidence of a crime ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . The applicants were informed of these decisions in undated letters ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the latter decision of DATE was set aside by superior prosecutors and the proceedings resumed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They were again discontinued owing to the absence of evidence of a crime on DATE and then re - opened on DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit CARDINAL informed the applicants that the investigation into the death of PERSON and PERSON had been resumed .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG , acting on the ORG behalf , requested the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE to inform them of the latest development in the case and to grant the status of victim to the first CARDINAL applicants .

In a letter of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the applicants that on DATE , with the consent of garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL , the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the death of PERSON and PERSON had been discontinued owing to the absence of evidence of a crime in the attack of DATE .

According to the Government , that decision had been taken in view of the investigating authorities’ finding that the pilots of the MI-CARDINAL helicopters had fired at the FAC car , with the result that the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives had been killed , pursuant to an order that had been given by the command centre and that had thus been binding on them . Accordingly , the pilots’ action did not constitute a criminal offence . The actions of superior officers who had given the order to destroy the FAC vehicle did not constitute a criminal offence either , given that after the warning shots the car had continued moving in the close vicinity of the counter - terrorist operation in a situation of active armed resistance , with the members of illegal armed groups threatening the lives of federal servicemen and other persons . The Government did not mention the names of the pilots who had participated in the attack of DATE or those of their superiors who had given the order in question .

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the SRJI that the file in the criminal case relating to the death of PERSON and PERSON had been transferred to the prosecutor ’s office of ORG on DATE in order to determine which body was competent to carry out the investigation . The prosecutor ’s letter referred to case no . DATE .

DATE . On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL again replied to a request from the SRJI , stating that case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL instituted in relation to the death of PERSON and PERSON had been forwarded to the prosecutor ’s office of ORG on DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG requested garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL to declare the first CARDINAL applicants to be victims in criminal case no . DATE and to grant them access to the case file .

On DATE garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL notified the first CARDINAL applicants in reply to their query that the file of the case concerning the killing of their sons had been sent to the prosecutor ’s office of ORG ( военная прокуратура Объединенной группы войск ) in order to verify whether the decision to discontinue the proceedings had been lawful and well - founded .

In letters of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL stated that the first and second applicants respectively could consult the case file in the garrison prosecutor ’s office on any working day from TIME until TIME The letter referred to case file no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINALD.

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL also informed the PERSON , in reply to their query , that the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINALD had been discontinued on DATE in the absence of evidence of a crime in the attack of CARDINAL DATE , and that therefore there were no grounds in domestic law for declaring the first CARDINAL applicants to be victims of a crime . The letter added that the first CARDINAL applicants could have access to the case file on any working day between CARDINAL a.m. and TIME

On DATE the ORG applied on the ORG behalf to garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL . They stated that on DATE the ORG legal counsel had attempted to gain access to the documents in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINALD but this had been refused on the ground that the case file had been transmitted to the military prosecutor ’s office of GPE ( военная прокуратура PERSON ) . In this connection the PERSON requested garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL to notify them of the reasons for the transfer of the case to the military prosecutor ’s office of GPE and of any new developments in the investigation , together with the date on which , and the place where , the first CARDINAL applicants and their lawyers could study the case file .

On DATE the PERSON sent a similar letter to the military prosecutor ’s office of GPE .

On DATE the Chief Military Prosecutor ’s Office forwarded the request of the SRJI to the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG for examination .

In a letter of DATE garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL informed the PERSON that the file in criminal case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINALD had been referred to the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG for examination and then , after DATE , to a newly organised military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL ( военная прокуратура DATE ) in GPE . The letter thus invited the applicants and their representatives to apply to the last mentioned prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL stated that they had replied to all the queries from the SRJI in a letter of DATE .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG informed the first CARDINAL applicants and the PERSON that the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINALD had been discontinued on DATE and that no subsequent investigative measures had been taken . The military prosecutor ’s office of ORG had studied the case materials and found the aforementioned decision of DATE to have been substantiated . The case file had then been forwarded to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL and the applicants could consult the file there .

According to the applicants , all their efforts to gain access to the case file have so far proved unsuccessful . On the latest occasion they attempted to consult the case file in DATE , but in vain .

In DATE , at the communication stage , the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in the criminal case instituted in connection with the attack of DATE and the killing of PERSON and PERSON . Relying on the information obtained from ORG , the ORG refused to submit any documents from the criminal investigation file , stating that , even though the investigation had been discontinued , the disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW of LAW since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses .

On DATE the application was declared admissible . At that stage the ORG again invited the ORG to submit the investigation file . In DATE the ORG agreed to reveal the case - file materials , apart from documents “ the disclosure of which [ might ] be harmful to the interests of the security of GPE and of the participants in the criminal proceedings ” and those “ which were irrelevant to the investigation ” . According to the Government , the submission of the case file at an earlier stage had been inappropriate in view of the need to secure the safety of the participants in the criminal proceedings and to ensure that the information from the preliminary investigation was not disclosed , in accordance with LAW as well as on account of the applicants’ failure to exhaust available domestic remedies .

Eventually , the Government produced a number of documents running to a total of CARDINAL pages . They can be summarised as follows .

By a decision of DATE the prosecutor of LOC ordered that criminal proceedings under LAW ( a ) and ( f ) of LAW ( murder of CARDINAL or more persons committed by a generally dangerous method ) be instituted in connection with an attack by CARDINAL military helicopters DATE which had resulted in the death of PERSON and PERSON .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator in charge took up the case . In another decision taken on DATE the investigator in charge granted the status of victim of a crime to PERSON , who had sustained injuries as a result of the attack ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator in charge ordered that the case file be transferred to a military prosecutor ’s office , which had jurisdiction to investigate criminal offences committed by military personnel .

By a decision of DATE an investigator of the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL took up the case , which was given the number DATE .

DATE . A decision of DATE taken by the investigator in charge and approved by the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE ordered that the term of the preliminary investigation should be extended until DATE . The decision stated , in particular , that it had been established that on DATE at TIME the ORG CARDINAL relatives , together with PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON , had arrived in a FAC car at an area QUANTITY to the west of ORG for grass - cutting . The decision then continued :

“ At TIME CARDINAL military MI-CARDINAL helicopters appeared over the territory of GPE to the south of the village of ORG and started strafing the territory of GPE . At TIME [ the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives and the CARDINAL other persons mentioned above ] got into the [ FAC ] car and attempted to drive off in the direction of the village of ORG . At the same time the helicopters ... moved in their direction and opened fire on the car from aircraft machine - guns . [ The applicants’ CARDINAL relatives and the CARDINAL others mentioned above ] left the car and went into hiding in grass nearby . The helicopters went on strafing the vehicle and [ the CARDINAL ORG ] hiding - place from missile launchers and aircraft machine - guns . As a result of the attack PERSON and PERSON died . ”

The report then listed the investigative actions that had been carried out . It stated , in particular , that the scene of the incident had been inspected and craters and metallic pieces of shrapnel with markings had been found , that the corpses of PERSON and PERSON had been examined and then sent to ORG for a forensic examination , and that PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who had been present at the scene of the incident on the date of the attack , had been questioned as witnesses . The decision also prescribed that further investigative measures be taken . It ordered that the identity of the pilots of the CARDINAL MI-CARDINAL helicopters be established and that they be questioned , that the identity of the persons who had ordered the pilots to open fire be established and that those persons be charged with a criminal offence , and that other investigative measures necessary to complete the investigation be carried out .

By a decision of DATE the investigator in charge of the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE suspended the proceedings in case no . DATE . The decision restated the facts of the incident and listed the investigative actions that had been conducted , in the same manner as this had been stated in the decision of DATE . It went on to say the following :

“ A witness questioned in the course of the investigation , Lieutenant Colonel PERSON , the head of the headquarters of the aircraft division of a [ deleted ] military unit , confirmed the fact of the attack on the FAC vehicle by helicopters of a [ deleted ] separate helicopter squadron in the vicinity of the village of ORG . It follows from Lieutenant Colonel PERSON ’s statement that at present the [ deleted ] separate helicopter squadron had been transferred from the territory of GPE to the place of its permanent station in the city of [ deleted ] .

Taking into account that the alleged perpetrator has not been identified , despite all the measures taken , that all the investigative measures which could have been carried out within the territory of GPE have been taken and that the personnel of the [ deleted ] separate helicopter squadron have left for the place of their permanent station in the town of [ deleted ] ... the investigation should be carried out [ at that place ] in the town of [ deleted ] .

The decision thus ordered that the criminal proceedings be suspended , as it was impossible to establish the identity of those responsible , and that the case file be transmitted to the military prosecutor ’s office of the Kursk garrison .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG quashed the decision of DATE , stating that the investigation had been incomplete and ordering that the case be sent to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL for additional investigation .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE an investigator of the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE took up the case .

A decision of DATE ordered that the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL be stayed . It was , in essence , similar to the decision of DATE , but stated in addition the following :

“ A witness questioned in the course of the investigation , [ deleted ] L. , stated that on DATE illegal fighters had attacked a [ federal air ] group in the vicinity of the village of ORG . A MI-CARDINAL helicopter [ was hit as a result of the attack ] and fell to the west from ORG ... A search group , together with MI-CARDINAL helicopters for fire support , was sent to the site of the crash . Thereafter the pilots of the helicopters reported that they had destroyed a FAC vehicle from which illegal fighters had been firing at the helicopters . [ Witness L. ] was not asked for permission to open fire on the FAC vehicle . As a result of inspection [ by federal servicemen ] of an area in the vicinity of ORG , a damaged FAC vehicle , hand grenades , spent cartridges from machine - guns cases and a bloodstained ammunition belt were found ” .

The decision then concluded that the identity of those responsible could not be established and ordered that the proceedings be suspended .

In a decision of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG set aside the decision of DATE , stating as follows :

“ An examination of the materials of the criminal case has established that the investigation was becoming procrastinated , that no practical measures aimed at establishing the identity of those responsible were being taken , that special requests were being met , with the result that it is now difficult to assess the actions or omissions of public officials and pilots of the ORG crew , who have not been questioned to date . Until the present time no forensic examination of the dead bodies has been carried out , and therefore the cause of death has not been established and the question of the damage sustained by [ those who were declared victims in the proceedings ] has not been resolved . ”

The military prosecutor ’s office thus ordered that the decision of DATE be quashed , that the proceedings in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL instituted in connection with the murder of PERSON and PERSON be resumed and that the case file be forwarded to garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL for additional investigation .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE an investigator of the garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL took up the case , referring to file number CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINALD.

A decision of the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG dated DATE again quashed the decision of DATE and ordered the re - opening of the investigation in case no . CARDINAL concerning the murder of the applicants’ relatives . It set out the same reasons as the decision of DATE .

DATE . In a decision of DATE the investigator in charge of garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL ordered that the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINALD concerning the murder of PERSON and PERSON be closed in part . The decision stated as follows :

“ On DATE at TIME a MI-CARDINAL helicopter of a [ deleted ] separate helicopter squadron fell down in the vicinity of the village of ORG of LOC . A helicopter which arrived at the site of the crash for the evacuation of the injured servicemen was also attacked by fire . On DATE at TIME , pursuant to an order of Colonel NORP , the commander of military unit no . DATE , CARDINAL MI-CARDINAL helicopters under the command of Major [ the real name is replaced with the nickname “ PERSON ” ] and PERSON [ the real name is replaced with the nickname “ Petrov ” ] were sent to cover the rescue operation . At TIME , while patrolling over the area to the west of ORG , they saw a white [ Niva ] vehicle and CARDINAL [ rather than CARDINAL ] persons armed with automatic firearms standing nearby , and immediately reported this to the command centre of ORG in the village of GPE of GPE . The helicopter[s ] [ were ] at an altitude of QUANTITY and at a distance of QUANTITY from the car . [ The pilots ] observed the car through a target control system of tenfold magnification . The command centre reported that the identity of those persons would be established . TIME the command centre gave an order to destroy the vehicle . Then [ the pilots ] fired a warning shot from a gun at a spot situated QUANTITY away from the car with the purpose of warning everybody to stay where they were until the arrival of ground troops . After the warning shot , the people got into the car and started driving in the direction of the village of ORG . [ The pilots ] reported to the command centre and received a repeated order to destroy the vehicle . Following the order , [ the pilots ] again fired a warning burst from an aircraft machine - gun . The car continued to advance . Thereafter , the third burst for effect was fired from the helicopter under the command of Major [ “ PERSON ” ] after which the car stopped . This was reported to the command centre and to the ground troops ... As a result of the attack PERSON and PERSON died .

Accordingly , there is nominal evidence of a criminal offence punishable under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW [ aggravated abuse of power ] in the actions of an official who ordered the destruction of the [ Niva ] vehicle . However , [ this ] order was justified in the aforementioned circumstances , and therefore the criminal proceedings in the part concerning the criminal offence under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of FAC should be terminated [ owing to the absence of evidence of a criminal in that official ’s actions ... ] ”

Another decision taken by the same investigator on DATE ordered that the criminal proceedings instituted concerning the murder of the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives be discontinued in full . The decision described the circumstances of the attack of DATE as they were stated in the aforementioned decision of DATE and referred to a report on the inspection of the scene of the incident of DATE , the reports on the forensic examination of the dead bodies of PERSON and PERSON dated DATE and witness statements of PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON , those of the pilots of the MI-CARDINAL helicopters , those of Colonel NORP , the commander of military unit no . DATE , and those of Lieutenant Colonel A. , the head of the headquarters of military unit [ the number of the unit is deleted ] as well as to the other decision of DATE . It then concluded :

“ Accordingly , on the basis of the evidence obtained during the investigation , it has been established that on DATE at TIME in the vicinity of the village of ORG ... the members of the crew of the MI-CARDINAL helicopters destroyed the [ Niva ] vehicle pursuant to an order which was justified in the circumstances and was binding on them , and therefore their actions did not constitute a criminal offence and they are not liable to criminal responsibility for the damage inflicted by their actions . The criminal case instituted on DATE under CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) and ( f ) of the NORP LAW shall be terminated ... in the absence of evidence of a crime . ”

In undated letters the investigating authorities informed the applicants , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON that the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the attack of DATE and the murder of PERSON and PERSON had been suspended on DATE owing to the absence of evidence of a crime . The applicants were informed that the decision could be appealed against to the prosecutor of garrison no . CARDINAL or before a court .

By a decision of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG set aside the second decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stating that the preliminary investigation had been incomplete , that the special instructions had not been complied with , and that all the measures envisaged in the law had not been taken , with the result that it was difficult to assess the actions or omissions of the public officials and the members of the crew of the MI-CARDINAL helicopters . The decision thus ordered that the investigation be resumed .

On DATE an investigator of garrison prosecutor ’s office no . CARDINAL took up the case .

NORP In letters of CARDINAL DATE the investigator in charge informed the second applicant ’s family , as well as PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON , that on DATE the proceedings in connection with the death of the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives had been discontinued in the absence of evidence of a crime , and that this decision could be appealed against to the prosecutor of garrison no . CARDINAL or in court . It is unclear whether the first applicant ’s family was informed of the decision of DATE , as there is no letter to that effect among the documents submitted by the Government . A copy of the decision of DATE was not submitted to the ORG either .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG quashed the decision of DATE , stating that the investigation had been incomplete , that a superior ORG

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE an investigator of the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL took up the case .

On DATE the investigator in charge informed the second applicant ’s family and the aforementioned CARDINAL men who had been attacked together with PERSON and PERSON of the decision of DATE . It is unclear whether the first applicant ’s family was informed of the said decision , as there is no letter to that effect among the documents submitted by the Government .

A decision of DATE taken by the investigator in charge of the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL ordered that the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE be terminated . The decision described the circumstances of the attack of DATE as they had been stated in the decision of DATE on complete termination of the criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) and referred to the same documents as those relied on in that decision . It also referred to the witness statement of PERSON , the head of the administration of ORG at the relevant period , that of PERSON , the head of the flight safety service , and the report of a military expert of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that it had been established that at the relevant period a counter - terrorist operation had been underway within the territory of the GPE region , which comprised several GPE , including GPE and GPE . The residents of the region had been notified that once approached by military vehicles or federal servicemen they were to mark themselves with a piece of white cloth so as to indicate that they were civilians and wait for the arrival of servicemen for an identity check . The decision went on to say that on DATE the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives and the CARDINAL other men , who had been discovered in the vicinity of ORG by CARDINAL MI-CARDINAL helicopters under the command of Major “ PERSON ” and PERSON “ PERSON , had failed to comply with the aforementioned requirements and , after a warning shot , had attempted to escape in the PERSON car with the result that the MI-CARDINAL helicopters had opened fire for effect , entailing the death of PERSON and PERSON . The decision then concluded that the pilots had acted pursuant to an order which had been justified in the circumstances and had been binding on them , and therefore their actions did not constitute a criminal offence and they were not responsible for the damage caused . It thus ordered that the criminal proceedings against officers “ PERSON ” and “ PERSON ” be discontinued in the absence of evidence of a crime in their actions .

There are a number of transcripts of witness interviews among the documents submitted by the Government . In particular , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON described the attack of DATE as stated in the applicant ’s version of events ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) and insisted that they had had no firearms and that it had been obvious that they had been civilians cutting grass and had posed no danger . PERSON and PERSON also stated that they had never received any information concerning the rules of conduct of civilians in the zone of a counter - terrorist operation , that it had never been explained how a civilian should mark himself , as no special operations had been carried out in FAC . ORG submitted that the head of the administration of ORG and officers of ORG had explained to the local residents that they should avoid the military personnel , not approach and not provoke them . He had heard from his relatives that when federal servicemen opened fire it was necessary to mark oneself as a civilian with a piece of white cloth and wait for the arrival of servicemen for an identity check , but during the attack of DATE he had not performed those actions , as they had all been scared and attempted to escape , fearing for their lives .

Mr F. , the head of the administration of ORG at the material time , stated that PERSON and PERSON had never been involved in illegal activities , and no criminal proceedings had ever been brought against them . He also submitted that on DATE he had visited the scene of the incident with the FAC car , together with local law - enforcement officers . According to PERSON , during the inspection of the scene of the incident pieces of shrapnel and craters from shells and bullets had been found . PERSON claimed that there had been no firearms or grenades at the scene of the incident , that it had not been attended by servicemen or any persons before the arrival of the law - enforcement officers and that there had been no traces of anyone ’s prior presence at the scene . PERSON also stated as follows :

“ Since DATE a counter - terrorist operation has been underway within the territory of GPE . From that time onwards the federal forces have repeatedly conducted special operations in the village of ORG , during which representatives of official bodies or commanding officers have never explained the rules of conduct in a situation when representatives of the federal forces approach . I , myself , have on several occasions told the residents of the village that if military vehicles , aircraft or armed soldiers appear they should move away to a safe distance .

During DATE it was never explained to me that on the approach of aircraft or helicopters it was necessary for people to mark themselves as civilians – with a white cloth or in any other way – to make the servicemen understand that they are civilians . Accordingly , I never gave such explanations to the residents of the village .

The officials of ORG did not give [ any such explanations ] either , since there were no military actions on the territory of GPE ... ”

According to a statement of a superior officer of the air force obtained on DATE , in case of necessity the pilot in command of a helicopter might be authorised by the command centre to take , of his own motion , a decision to open fire .

Officer PERSON , whose military rank and position are unknown as his personal details have been deleted from the transcript , stated during the questioning of DATE that :

“ ... the pilots reported that they had destroyed a Niva vehicle with illegal fighters , who had been firing at the helicopters . The pilots did not request me to give them authorisation to open fire . I suppose that the pilot in command , of his own motion , took a decision to destroy the GPE car , having assessed the battle conditions . After the rescue operation had been completed , the area in the vicinity of the crash was inspected . As a result , a destroyed FAC vehicle was found and several hand - grenades , spent cartridges from light machine - guns and a bloodstained ammunition belt were found nearby . ”

Lieutenant Colonel A. , whose position is unknown as his personal details have been deleted from the transcript , stated during questioning on DATE that it was he who , on DATE , had assigned a mission to a group consisting of the MI-CARDINAL helicopter , which had then been hit by the rebel fighters , and CARDINAL MI-CARDINAL helicopters , which had been entrusted with the task of “ covering ” the MI-CARDINAL helicopter . He stated that this group had not been involved in an attack on the FAC car and that he had no information regarding the attack .

According to a statement of DATE by PERSON , an investigator from ORG , he had been summoned to the scene of the incident with the FAC car on DATE . When he arrived , the destroyed vehicle and the dead bodies had already been removed from the site . Mr I. had inspected the site and found fragments of shrapnel , pieces of broken car headlights and bloodstains . According to him , he had found no grenades , spent cartridges from light machine - guns or an ammunition belt .

Mr B. , who at the material time had been a driver for ORG and had attended the scene of the incident as an attesting witness on DATE , stated during questioning on DATE that he had seen a severely damaged Niva car , CARDINAL dead bodies lying QUANTITY away and a lot of craters and pieces of shrapnel . PERSON submitted that he had seen an ORG hand grenade lying between the vehicle and one of the corpses . According to him , he had not seen any firearms , spent cartridges from light machine - guns or ammunition belts at the scene of the incident ; near the corpses PERSON had only seen scythes .

The pilots of the CARDINAL Mi-CARDINAL helicopters who had attacked the FAC car on DATE were questioned on CARDINAL and DATE respectively . The real names , surnames and personal details of the pilots have been deleted from the transcripts of their interviews . The pilots in command of the helicopters are indicated with the nicknames “ PERSON ” and “ PERSON and an operating pilot who was working in tandem with “ PERSON ” is indicated as “ PERSON ” .

Witness “ PERSON ” submitted that he had participated in a rescue operation of DATE as pilot in command of the lead helicopter of a pair of MI-CARDINAL helicopters . The mission was assigned to them by the commander of military unit no . DATE , who received orders from the command centre of the main federal military base in the village of GPE , GPE . According to “ PERSON ” , at TIME he noticed a white FAC car and CARDINAL [ rather than CARDINAL ] men standing nearby , all of whom had automatic firearms . He observed the people without using any optical devices from the distance of QUANTITY and altitude of QUANTITY , but insisted that he clearly saw the people had firearms , and that his operating pilot , “ NORP ” , had seen them through a target control system of tenfold magnification . He reported this to the command centre in GPE and was told that the identity of those CARDINAL persons would be established . The pilots continued observing , the FAC vehicle remained still and the CARDINAL men were moving around it . TIME “ PERSON ” received an order from the command centre in GPE to destroy the car . According to him , he did not know the name of the official who had given the order . “ PERSON ” then sought and obtained confirmation of that order . He fired a warning shot at a spot situated QUANTITY away from the car , so as to make the people stand still and wait for the arrival of federal servicemen for an identity check . After the shot , the people got into the car and drove off in the direction of ORG . “ PERSON ” reported this to the command centre in GPE and received an order to destroy the vehicle . He then fired a warning burst from an aircraft machine - gun , but the car carried on moving . “ PERSON ” fired another burst and hit the PERSON vehicle , which stopped but nobody got out of it . “ PERSON ” then reported the incident to his superiors and left for the place of his station , as he was running out of fuel . “ PERSON ” insisted that he did not know the names or military ranks of officials who had given him orders and had had no doubt that the CARDINAL men belonged to illegal armed groups , as they had been armed . He submitted that “ the people in the [ GPE ] car were supposed to stop after a warning shot ; this was known to all the civilian population in the area of the military actions ” .

Witness “ PERSON stated that he had participated in a rescue operation on DATE as wingman of the pair of MI-CARDINAL helicopters . He confirmed that he had seen from a distance of QUANTITY a white GPE car and CARDINAL [ rather than CARDINAL ] armed men , who after “ PERSON ’s ” warning shot had got into the car and started driving away , although “ everybody knew that a car must stop at a shot or even a helicopter ’s flight ” . “ PERSON ” submitted that he had not been authorised to communicate with the command centre but had heard “ PERSON ’s ” communications and confirmed that “ PERSON ” had reported about the car and the people to the command centre and twice received an order to destroy the vehicle . After the second order from the command centre “ PERSON ” had given “ PERSON ” a command to fire at the vehicle , and the latter had strafed the vehicle with a machine - gun of QUANTITY calibre , whilst “ PERSON ” had fired at it with an automatic cannon of CARDINAL PERSON calibre . The car had stopped but nobody had got out . He then left for the place of his location , as he was running out of fuel . “ Petrov ” stated that he did not know the names or military ranks of the officials who had communicated with “ PERSON ” on DATE .

Witness “ PERSON ” stated that on DATE he had been an operating pilot on the MI-CARDINAL helicopter under the command of “ PERSON , and that he had observed a PERSON car and CARDINAL [ rather than CARDINAL ] men with automatic firearms standing nearby through a target control system of tenfold magnification , as he had reported to “ PERSON ” . He then submitted the following :

“ I clearly heard Major [ “ PERSON ” ] report about the car to [ deleted ] and to [ deleted ] . TIME an order followed from [ deleted ] ( PERSON ) to fire a warning shot . “ PERSON ” fired a warning shot from an automatic cannon in front of the car . The people got into the vehicle and drove off in the direction of the village of ORG and did not stop . All local inhabitants know that it is necessary to stop . [ “ PERSON ” ] reported to [ deleted ] that the car had not stopped . An order to fire another warning shot followed . [ “ PERSON ” ] made another circle and fired in front of the car with the automatic cannon , but the car did not stop . [ “ PERSON ” ] reported to [ deleted ] about the situation with the car . An order followed to open fire for effect . [ “ PERSON ” ] opened fire for effect , and the car stopped and I saw CARDINAL persons get out and run into the forest . [ “ PERSON ” ] reported to [ the command centre ] that the car had stopped and thereafter he transmitted to [ deleted ] the information on the car ’s location to enable an identity check of the people in the car . ”

During questioning on DATE Colonel NORP submitted that at the material time he had been the commander of the [ deleted ] separate helicopter squadron and that on DATE he had heard communications between the MI-CARDINAL helicopters and the command centre . He confirmed that the pilots had reported about the FAC vehicle and armed men nearby , that they had been ordered to fire a warning shot , that the pilots had reported that the men had got into the car and attempted to escape and that the pilots had been ordered to destroy the vehicle .

Officer PERSON , a military expert , stated during an interview of DATE that the actions of the pilots of the MI-CARDINAL helicopters , who had attacked the group of people on DATE , had fully complied with relevant military regulations and the provisions of international law and had been justified in the circumstances . The expert admitted that the pilots could have mistaken agricultural equipment , in particular scythes , for firearms , but noted that the pilots had been absolutely positive that the men whom they had noticed had been armed and that those men had not marked themselves as civilians and had attempted to escape .

A report on the inspection of the scene of the incident of DATE attested the presence of a large number of craters and metallic fragments of irregular shape as well as pieces of broken glass from backlights and a splash shield of a car and a large brown stain resembling blood . A piece of a broken scythe was also found at the scene of the incident .

Reports on the examination of the corpses of PERSON and PERSON on DATE attested the presence of a number of bleeding wounds of irregular shape , going from top downwards .

Reports on the medical forensic examination of the corpses of PERSON and PERSON on DATE , based on the aforementioned CARDINAL reports of DATE , confirmed that the corpses had borne bullet wounds , that the death of the CARDINAL men had been caused by those wounds and that the location of the wounds indicated that they could have been inflicted in the circumstances described in the materials of the criminal case file .

An expert commission made up of CARDINAL military experts , PERSON ( see paragraph DATE above ) and PERSON , stated as follows in a report of DATE :

“ According to the rules in force in the territory of GPE and neighbouring regions , a driver of any transport vehicle is obliged , at the sight of a military helicopter , to stop the vehicle , get out and mark himself . Therefore the crew had the right to destroy the vehicle , which was moving away from the area of an attack without marking itself with a prearranged signal ( a white flag , a green signal flare ) . ”

The report thus concluded that the pilots had been justified in their actions .

The materials submitted by the Government reveal that the investigating authorities also sent a number of queries and requests to various ORG bodies in the context of the investigation . In particular , on DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE sent a request to the military prosecutor of the Kursk garrison to establish whether the pilots who had attacked the Niva car had coordinated their actions with their superiors , to establish the identity of those superiors , and to establish who had taken the decision to attack the FAC car . It is unclear whether this request has ever been complied with , as there are no corresponding documents among the materials submitted by the Government .

ORG . The Government also adduced copies of domestic court decisions taken in unrelated sets of civil proceedings . These included a first - instance judgment and appeal decision awarding compensation for property damage inflicted by servicemen in ORG ; a first - instance judgment and appeal decision awarding damages to the first applicant in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , judgment of DATE ) in connection with the death of his relatives in GPE ; and a first - instance judgment and appeal decision refusing compensation for property damage inflicted by servicemen in ORG .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW RSFSR . On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW ( CCP ) .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that the decision of an investigator or prosecutor to dispense with or terminate criminal proceedings , and other decisions and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede ORG access to justice , may be appealed against to a district court , which is empowered to examine the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG enshrines the rule that information from the preliminary investigation may not be disclosed . Part CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . It is prohibited to divulge information about the private lives of participants in criminal proceedings without their permission .


CASE OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY PARTY (ÖZDEP) v. TURKEY

Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The Freedom and Democracy Party ( ÖZDEP ) was founded on DATE . Its constitution was lodged with ORG DATE . Its programme included the following passages .

“ ... Following the war of ‘ Liberation’ waged jointly by NORP , NORP and other national minorities , the Sultanate was abolished in GPE and the Republic proclaimed .

The sole aim of the LOC has been to establish national sovereignty . Efforts to unite GPE with LOC have come to nothing . GPE has not succeeded in lifting itself out of mediocrity .

From DATE of the Republic , certain parties have had a monopoly on power along with the collaboration of civil and military bureaucrats .

In order to preserve that monopoly , the policy of those in power has been to refuse to recognise the existence of the NORP people and to ignore its most legitimate rights .

The dominant ‘ Turkish’ philosophy has been maintained up to the present day , overriding the most natural rights and claims of the NORP people , by means of militaristic and chauvinistic propaganda and a policy of exile and destruction . State policy , based on a capitalist system designed to oppress minorities – particularly NORP minorities , but even NORP ones – has been pursued in the name of modernisation and westernisation .

Owing to this policy , which colours the political , economic and social aspects of GPE ’s territorial integrity , there is no possibility of this monopoly of ORG power being brought to an end . That power runs counter to the interests of the vast majority of the population .

It uses force to impose the present situation on the people in order to preserve its economic interests . Thus , it blocks the way to any democratic process aimed at protecting the interests of NORP and NORP workers .

ORG proposes to create a system ruled by peace and fraternity in which our peoples will be entitled to self - determination .

ORG uses political , democratic and ideological means to combat all fascist , fundamentalist , chauvinistic and racist movements or organisations hindering solidarity , unity and brotherhood between peoples .

Both in domestic and foreign policy , the aim of ORG is to protect the interests of our peoples and those of all workers . ÖZDEP is the guarantor of the cultural , occupational , economic and political values of the various national or religious minorities and of every socio - professional category . It seeks recognition of the right to form a political party .

Our ORG will guarantee the religious and national minorities the right to worship as they please , to practise their religion freely , to freedom of thought and to respect for their customs , cultures and languages . Every individual will be entitled to use the media , especially radio and television .

ORG has proposals on how to determine and define the prerequisites for establishing a social order encompassing the NORP and NORP peoples .

ÖZDEP regards our peoples as the sole owners of the country ’s wealth , natural wealth and mineral resources .

ÖZDEP supports the just and legitimate struggle of the peoples for independence and freedom . It stands by them in this struggle .

Our ORG proposes the creation of a democratic assembly of representatives of the people elected by universal suffrage . This assembly will represent the interests of the NORP people , the NORP people and any other minority .

This popular and democratic assembly will have the same powers as the current legislature and will be the guarantor of our peoples’ national sovereignty .

The media will be the moving force for the consolidation of fraternity and friendship between peoples . They will encourage a better approach to different cultures and languages and will guarantee the national identity of each sector of the population . They will be responsible for ensuring that the political , economic , social and cultural rights of the peoples are recognised .

There will be no government interference in religious affairs , which will be placed in the hands of the relevant institutions .

In order to preserve the right to self - determination of oppressed peoples , our ORG will outlaw any form of cultural , military , political or economic aggression .

ORG is campaigning for the voluntary unification of the NORP and NORP peoples , who participated in the foundation of the country .

ORG considers that there can be democracy only if the NORP problem is solved . This problem concerns every NORP and GPE who supports freedom and democracy .

ORG favours a peaceful and democratic solution to the NORP problem , subject to the strict application of international instruments such as LAW , ORG .

ORG will fully respect the NORP people ’s right to self - determination so that a democratic solution based on the self - determination and equality of peoples can be found .

Currently , our legislation and the manner in which the legal system operates are inherently undemocratic , contrary to fundamental human rights and freedoms and based on class interests . They deny the NORP people an identity and forbid any form of workers’ organisation or association . They are racist and retrograde .

An order will be established permitting the NORP and NORP peoples and the minorities to develop and enjoy their particular cultures freely . Each people will be entitled to education in its mother tongue , that being an essential prerequisite for the development of a people and a nation .

Everyone will have the right to basic education in his mother tongue . The education system from primary school to university will be based on education in one ’s mother tongue . A person ’s mother tongue shall be given precedence in court proceedings ... ”

On DATE , ORG at ORG ( “ ORG Counsel ” ) applied to ORG to have ÖZDEP dissolved on the grounds that it had infringed the principles of LAW and the PERSON on the regulation of political parties . He considered that the content and aims set out in the party ’s programme sought to undermine the territorial integrity and secular nature of the ORG and the unity of the nation .

On DATE the President of ORG sent ORG application to the Chairman of ORG inviting him to lodge his preliminary observations in defence .

On DATE ORG ’s lawyers filed preliminary written observations and requested a hearing . They argued , inter alia , that the PERSON on the regulation of political parties contained provisions that were contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed by LAW . They also maintained that dissolving the party would infringe the provisions of international instruments such as LAW , LAW , LAW and GPE for LOC . They submitted that it was unacceptable to force a political party , on pain of being dissolved , to promote an ideology which conformed to LAW .

On DATE , while the ORG proceedings were still pending , a meeting of the founding members of ÖZDEP resolved to dissolve the party .

On DATE ORG lodged his submissions on the merits of the case with ORG . Since ÖZDEP had gone into voluntary dissolution , it did not file any submissions on the merits .

On DATE ORG made an order dissolving ORG , notably on the ground that its programme was apt to undermine the territorial integrity of the ORG and the unity of the nation and violated both the LAW and sections CARDINAL(a ) and CARDINAL(a ) and ( b ) of the LAW on the regulation of political parties . The judgment was served on ORG , the Speaker of ORG and ORG . ORG judgment was published in ORG on DATE .

ORG held , firstly , that , pursuant to section CARDINAL of the PERSON on the regulation of political parties , ORG ’s resolution to go into voluntary dissolution did not prevent that court from ruling on the merits of the case as it had been made after the commencement of the proceedings before it .

As to the merits , ORG began by reiterating the constitutional principles that all persons living on NORP territory , whatever their ethnic origin , formed a whole united by their common culture . The sum of the persons who made up GPE was called the “ NORP nation ” . The different ethnic groups making up the “ NORP nation ” were not divided into a majority and minorities . The court reiterated that , under LAW , no political or legal distinction based on ethnic or racial origin could be made between citizens : all NORP nationals , without distinction , could avail themselves of all civil , political and economic rights .

With particular reference to NORP citizens of NORP origin , ORG held that in every region of GPE such persons enjoyed the same rights as other NORP citizens . That did not mean that the LAW denied the existence of a NORP identity , since citizens of NORP origin were not forbidden to express their NORP identity . The NORP language could be used on all private premises , in workplaces , in the press and in works of art and literature .

ORG reiterated the principle that everyone was bound to observe the provisions of the LAW even if they did not agree with them . LAW did not preclude the celebration of difference but forbade propaganda based on racial difference and aimed at destroying the constitutional order . It pointed out that by virtue of LAW having a separate language or ethnic origin was not by itself enough for a group to qualify as a minority .

With regard to the content of ORG ’s programme , ORG observed that it was based on the assumption that there was a separate NORP people in GPE with its own culture and language . The NORP were portrayed in the programme as an oppressed people whose democratic rights were being completely ignored . According to ORG , ORG called for a right to self - determination for the NORP and supported their right to wage a “ war of independence ” . Its stance was similar to that of terrorist organisations and constituted in itself an incitement to insurrection .

In relation to the principle of secularism , ORG noted that ORG ’s programme contained a proposal for the abolition of ORG of the government on the ground that religious affairs should be under the control of the religious institutions themselves . After reiterating what was meant by the principle of secularism , the court said that advocating the abolition of the government ORG amounted to undermining the principle of secularism . It concluded that that aspect of ORG ’s programme was contrary to section CARDINAL of the PERSON on the regulation of political parties .

ORG pointed to the fact that GPE for a LOC condemned racism , ethnic hatred and terrorism and that the GPE LAW guaranteed the inviolability of national frontiers and territorial integrity . It concluded that ORG ’s activities were subject , inter alia , to the restrictions referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of LAW and to LAW .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ GPE is a democratic , secular and social ORG based on the rule of law , respectful of human rights in a spirit of social peace , national solidarity and justice , adhering to the nationalism of PERSON and resting on the fundamental principles set out in the Preamble . ”

“ The State of GPE constitutes with its territory and nation , an indivisible whole . The official language is NORP . ”

“ Sovereignty resides unconditionally and unreservedly in the nation .

Sovereign power shall not under any circumstances be transferred to an individual , a group or a social class ... ”

“ All individuals shall be equal before the law without any distinction based on language , race , colour , sex , political opinion , philosophical belief , religion , membership of a religious sect or other similar grounds . ”

“ None of the rights and freedoms referred to in the LAW shall be exercised with a view to undermining the territorial integrity of the ORG and the unity of the nation , jeopardising the existence of ORG , abolishing fundamental rights and freedoms , placing the control of the ORG in the hands of a single individual or group , ensuring the domination of CARDINAL social class over other social classes , introducing discrimination on the grounds of language , race , religion or membership of a religious sect , or establishing by any other means a political system based on any of the above concepts and opinions . ”

“ Everyone linked to ORG by nationality shall be NORP . ”

“ ORG shall have the right to form political parties and to join them or withdraw from them in accordance with the lawful procedure laid down for the purpose ...

Political parties shall be an indispensable part of the democratic political system .

Political parties may be formed without prior permission and shall carry on their activities in accordance with the LAW and the law .

The constitutions and programmes of political parties shall not be inconsistent with the absolute integrity of State territory and of the nation , human rights , national sovereignty or the principles of a democratic secular Republic .

No political party shall be formed which aims to advocate or establish the domination of CARDINAL social class or group , or any form of dictatorship ... ”

“ Political parties shall not engage in activities other than those referred to in their constitutions and programmes , nor shall they disregard the restrictions laid down by LAW , on pain of permanent dissolution .

The decisions and internal running of political parties shall not be contrary to democratic principles .

Immediately a political party is formed , ORG shall verify as a matter of priority that its constitution and programme and the legal position of its founding members are consistent with the LAW and the laws of the land . He shall also monitor its activities .

Political parties may be dissolved by ORG , on application by ORG .

Founding members and managers , at whatever level , of political parties which have been permanently dissolved may not become founding members , managers or financial controllers of any new political party , nor shall a new party be formed if a majority of its members previously belonged to a party which has been dissolved ... ”

The relevant provisions of PERSON no . PERSON on the regulation of political parties read as follows :

“ Political parties

( a ) shall not aim or strive to or incite third parties to

change : the NORP form of ORG ; the ... provisions concerning the absolute integrity of ORG territory , the absolute unity of its nation , its official language , its flag or its national anthem ; ... the principle that sovereignty resides unconditionally and unreservedly in the NORP nation ; ... the provision that sovereign power can not be transferred to an individual , a group or a social class ... ;

jeopardise the existence of ORG , abolish fundamental rights and freedoms , introduce discrimination on grounds of language , race , colour , religion or membership of a religious sect , or establish , by any means , a system of government based on any such notion or concept .

( c ) shall not aim to defend or establish the domination of CARDINAL social class over the other social classes or the domination of a community or the setting up of any form of dictatorship ; they shall not carry on activities in pursuit of such aims ... ”

“ Political parties shall not aim to change the principle of the unitary ORG on which GPE is founded , nor carry on activities in pursuit of such an aim . ”

“ Political parties shall not

( a ) assert that there exist within the territory of GPE any national minorities based on differences relating to national or religious culture , membership of a religious sect , race or language ; or

( b ) aim to destroy national unity by proposing , on the pretext of protecting , promoting or disseminating a non - NORP language or culture , to create minorities on the territory of GPE or to engage in similar activities ... ”

“ Political parties shall not have an aim that runs counter to LAW , which provides that ORG , which is bound to carry out the duties assigned to it in conformity with the principle of secularism ... , shall be accountable to central Government . ”

“ The constitution , programme and activities of political parties shall not contravene the LAW or this PERSON . ”

“ Where a political party has been definitively dissolved , its founding members , its chairman , the members of its executive committee and central office , the members of its disciplinary and administrative organs at all levels and the members of political groups in ORG of GPE shall , if still members when the party was dissolved , be disqualified from acting as founders , managers or financial controllers of any other political party . Any members whose actions were responsible for the political party ’s being dissolved shall be disqualified for DATE from joining a political party or standing for election to ORG .

No political party shall be formed with a majority of members from a political party that has been dissolved . ”

“ No political party shall be formed with the name ‘ ORG , ‘ ORG , ‘ fascist’ , ‘ theocratic’ or ‘ national socialist’ , the name of a religion , language , race , sect or region , or a name including any of the above words or similar ones . ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall dissolve a political party where

( a ) the party ’s programme or constitution ... is contrary to the provisions of LAW of this PERSON ; or

( b ) its membership , central office or executive committee ... take a decision , issue a circular or make a statement ... contrary to the provisions of LAW of this PERSON or the Chairman , Vice - Chairman or General Secretary makes any written or oral statement contrary to those provisions ... ”

LAW , referred to in LAW , includes in particular sections LANGUAGE ) and PERSON ) , which are reproduced above .

“ All the assets of political parties dissolved by order of the Constitutional Court shall be transferred to the ORG . ”

“ A resolution by the competent body of a political party dissolving that party after an application for its dissolution has been lodged shall not prevent the proceedings before ORG continuing or deprive any dissolution order that is made of its legal effects . ”


No substantive violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the applicant's complaints;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was DATE at the time of the events and had previously suffered from tuberculosis on CARDINAL occasions .

On DATE the applicant visited a café - bar where he drank and became intoxicated . On his way home , at TIME , he passed by the building of the NORP national television ( “ ORG ” ) , in front of which there was a demonstration . The applicant was carrying a beer bottle , which he either dropped or threw against the building of the ORG . He then went to a nearby café .

Two police officers , who were providing security in front of the ORG , approached the applicant in the café . When they saw that he was intoxicated they led him off to the security guards ' duty room in the ORG .

NORP In response to the applicant 's request to be informed why he was being detained he was told that it was for disturbing the peace and for throwing objects at the building of the ORG in an attempt to break its windows .

The applicant was kept in the security guards ' duty room of the ORG until TIME He was then taken to ORG ( LOC районно управление на МВР ) for questioning , but , in view of his intoxicated state , was transferred to the Sobering - up ORG . The applicant arrived there at TIME and remained TIME .

NORP The applicant was discharged at TIME on DATE , DATE , into the custody of the police and was taken to ORG the First District Police Station for questioning .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was given a written reprimand by the police to refrain from disturbing the peace , to drink with caution and not to resist inspections by the police . The applicant refused to be served with the written reprimand .

The applicant contended , which the Government did not challenge , that he was released from the police station sometime in the afternoon on DATE .

The applicant submitted that when he was detained by the QUANTITY police officers in front of the building of the ORG he may have showed some resistance as he believed he was being wrongly detained . He contended , however , which the Government did not challenge , that while he was being led to the security guards ' duty room of the ORG the police officers repeatedly hit him with a truncheon on his hands , kicked him in his ankles and punched him in the back and in the area of his kidneys . The applicant maintained that his injuries were not treated nor tended to by a doctor while he was in detention .

In their subsequent statements before ORG , the police officers stated that the applicant was somewhat aggressive when they tried to detain him , but that they did not use any special measures to subdue him .

After being released on DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor and a special medical report for use in legal proceedings was prepared , the relevant part of which stated the following .

“ Preliminary data : The [ patient ] indicates that on CARDINAL at TIME he was beaten by uniformed police officers .

The examination established : On the back of the right hand in the area of the [ bracelet ] joint it is visible that a linear contusion of the skin exists of reddish - dark colour with a size of QUANTITY by QUANTITY . On the back of the wrist of the right hand another contusion can be seen with a size of QUANTITY by QUANTITY . On the back of the left hand in the area of the palm bone of the thumb there is a contusion and abrasion resulting from almost parallel scratches of reddish - dark colour protruding above the skin around them with a size of QUANTITY by QUANTITY .

CONCLUSION

The examination of [ the patient ] established : contusions and abrasions on the skin of both hands .

These injuries resulted from blows by or against solid blunt objects or blunt - cornered objects , as well as from the tangential affects of such objects and [ considering ] their morphological characteristics [ they ] reasonably correspond and could have been sustained in the manner and at the time indicated by [ the patient ] .

They caused him pain and suffering . ”

In DATE the applicant received treatment to ailments in his ankles and wrists .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG regarding the beating by the police officers on DATE and of being detained . On an unspecified date , he was informed that his complaint was being forwarded to the GPE 's ORG .

On DATE the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor 's Office refused to open a preliminary investigation because of lack of evidence of an offence . It based its decision on the applicant 's complaint to the authorities and on statements from the police officers who arrested him and the officer on duty at the sobering - up centre . ORG considered the applicant 's assertions to be unfounded and unsupported by any facts other than his complaints . The applicant appealed against the decision of ORG on an unspecified date .

NORP By decision of DATE ORG upheld the decision of the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor 's Office . It found that the facts of the case did not warrant the opening of a preliminary investigation . The decision of DATE stated , inter alia , the following :

“ From the materials [ contained ] in the file it [ can be ] ascertained that [ the complaint ] relates to the forced detention in a sobering - up centre of the applicant [ following ] a disturbance of public order [ while ] in an intoxicated state . The inquiries performed do not indicate that any unlawful actions [ were performed ] by the police . The collected data show that there was in fact a disturbance of public order – breaking of bottles , throwing objects at the building of the [ NORP national ] television , etc . In such case quite rightly [ the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor 's Office ] refused to open a preliminary investigation . ”

It is unclear whether a copy of the decision of ORG was ever sent to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG claiming that he had not received a response to his previous complaints .

On an undetermined date a prosecutor from ORG responded , in the form of a resolution , which stated , inter alia , the following :

“ On DATE a complaint was filed by [ the applicant ] , who was not satisfied with the decision of the prosecutors from ORG and ORG .

I reject the complaint of [ the applicant ] because ORG has already ruled on the matter and there is no necessity for it to change its position [ expressed ] in the decision of DATE . ”

The Government contended that a copy of the above resolution was sent to the applicant on DATE . The applicant maintained , however , that he never received it and that he only became aware of the decisions of ORG not to open a preliminary investigation on DATE . A note to that effect was inscribed in the applicant 's handwriting on the copies of the decisions he provided to the ORG .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided , as relevant :

“ ... [ P]olice [ officers ] may use ... force ... when performing their duties only if they [ have no alternative course of action ] in cases of :

resistance or refusal [ by a person ] to obey a lawful order ;

arrest of an offender who does not obey or resists a police [ officer ] ;

attack against citizens or police [ officers ] ; ... ”

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided that the use of force had to be proportionate to , in particular , the specific circumstances and the personality of the offender .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) imposed upon police officers the duty to “ protect , if possible , the health ... of persons against whom [ force was being used ] ” .

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code make it an offence to cause a light , intermediate or severe bodily injury to another individual .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that if the injury is caused by a police officer in the course of or in connection with the performance of his or her duties , the offence is an aggravated one . This offence is a publicly prosecutable one ( LAW ) .

Under LAW ( DATE ) , as in force at the relevant time , preliminary investigations for publicly prosecutable offences could be opened only by a decision of a prosecutor or an investigator ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The prosecutor or the investigator must open a preliminary investigation whenever he or she receives information , supported by sufficient evidence , that an offence might have been committed ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) .

During the relevant period , LAW provided that if the information provided to the authorities was not sufficiently supported by evidence , the latter had to conduct a preliminary inquiry ( verification ) in order to determine whether the opening of a preliminary investigation was warranted ( LAW ) .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1 (conviction);Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken to the GPE district police station in GPE , where he was searched and found to be in possession of a sachet of heroin . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the head of the GPE district police department held that the applicant had committed an act of petty hooliganism and ordered him to pay an administrative fine . He was released on DATE , according to his submissions , and on DATE , according to the Government . On DATE criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on suspicion of procuring and storing drugs . The investigation resulted in the indictment of the applicant for procurement , storage and sale of drugs , punishable under LAW of LAW .

On DATE the ORG of GPE convicted the applicant and ORG under LAW of LAW of having unlawfully procured , stored with a view to their sale and sold drugs in “ particularly large ” quantities . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and a confiscation order was made . Further to a medical report , he was ordered to undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment for drug addiction .

At the hearing before ORG the applicant stated that on DATE he had telephoned ORG . He asked ORG to obtain drugs for him . ORG said that he would try to do so and they agreed that the applicant would go to ORG ’s flat . Shortly afterwards , OZ called the applicant and asked him to buy heroin for her . She complained that she badly needed drugs as she was suffering from withdrawal symptoms . Frightened that she might commit suicide , the applicant agreed and arranged to meet her near the block of flats where ORG lived . They met TIME . He received MONEY ( RUR ) from CARDINAL and went to ORG ’s flat , where ORG sold him CARDINAL sachet of heroin at a cost of RUR CARDINAL . Since the amount of heroin bought from ORG was insufficient even for his own needs , he decided not to share it with ORG . The applicant further submitted to the court that he had subsequently given CARDINAL a soporific , telling her that the narcotic was of bad quality and that he would repay her money later . As he left , he saw people approaching who were , as he subsequently learned , police officers . He escaped from them , throwing the drugs away . TIME he returned and found the drugs . DATE , with the drugs still in his possession , he went to work , where he was arrested by the police . They found the drugs in his possession and seized them .

NORP The applicant ’s codefendant ORG also submitted at the hearing before ORG that he had sold the applicant CARDINAL sachet of heroin for RUR CARDINAL .

ORG observed that the applicant ’s testimony in court differed from that which he had consistently given throughout the pre - trial investigation , when he had pleaded guilty to buying CARDINAL sachets of heroin from GPE , CARDINAL for CARDINAL and the other for himself , for RUR CARDINAL , of which ORG CARDINAL had been received from CARDINAL . He also admitted that he had repeatedly bought drugs from ORG . Similarly , ORG stated throughout the pretrial investigation that he had sold CARDINAL sachets of heroin to the applicant for RUR CARDINAL .

ORG heard EF and PERSON , police officers from the criminal investigation department of the GPE district police of GPE , who submitted that the police had information that the applicant was involved in selling drugs . CARDINAL , who knew the applicant and could obtain drugs from him , was selected to verify that information . She agreed to take part in a “ test purchase ” of drugs , to be organised by the criminal investigation department . CARDINAL was given RUR CARDINAL in cash for that purpose . She was searched and no narcotics were found on her before her meeting with the applicant . She then made an appointment with the applicant . CARDINAL was placed under permanent surveillance , in the course of which ORG and ORG saw the applicant and CARDINAL meet , enter the block of flats in which ORG lived and leave the building some time later . CARDINAL gave a previouslyagreed sign indicating that she had purchased drugs from the applicant . The police officers tried to apprehend the applicant but he escaped . CARDINAL was brought to a police station where , in the presence of witnesses , she handed over a sachet of heroin which she claimed had been sold to her by the applicant , who had procured it from ORG . On DATE , the applicant was brought to the GPE district police station , where he was searched and found to be in possession of a sachet of heroin .

Witness OZ explained to ORG that she had voluntarily assisted the police in exposing drug trafficking by the applicant . Her evidence was similar to that of police officers PERSON and ORG .

According to expert reports , the substance contained in the sachet handed to the police by CARDINAL was heroin , weighing QUANTITY grams , and the substance contained in the sachet found by the police in the applicant ’s possession , in the circumstances described above , was also heroin , weighing QUANTITY .

ORG examined written evidence and statements by other witnesses , including a witness who had seen the applicant with a girl near the block of flats where ORG lived at the time of events in question .

ORG held that statements by the applicant and ORG during the pre - trial investigation were corroborated by witnesses’ testimony , expert opinions and written evidence in the case . It found that all the evidence in the case had been obtained in accordance with the law and that the applicant ’s defence rights , including the right to legal assistance , had been properly secured by the investigating authority . It concluded that on DATE the applicant had procured CARDINAL sachets of heroin from ORG , had sold CARDINAL of them to ORG and had kept the other with a view to its sale .

The applicant appealed against ORG judgment of DATE , complaining of violations of the criminal procedural law at the pre - trial investigation stage , including a violation of his defence rights . He also pointed out the lack of evidence of his guilt in the sale of drugs and asked that his actions be re - classified as the illicit procurement and storage of drugs without intent to sell , punishable under LAW . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the findings of ORG and dismissed the appeal . It found that the applicant ’s guilt had been fully proven by his own statements and the other evidence in the case and that there had been no substantial violations of the criminal procedural law during the pre - trial investigation or at the trial which would require the quashing of the judgment .

On DATE the Deputy President of ORG of GPE lodged an application with the ORG of ORG to review the case in supervisory proceedings ( протест ) . The grounds for the request were that the applicant ’s actions should have been classified as the illicit procurement and storage of drugs without intent to sell , punishable under LAW . The application called for the judgment of DATE and the appeal decision of CARDINAL DATE to be amended so that the applicant would be convicted under LAW , sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and released from that sentence pursuant to the relevant amnesty law .

On DATE , at the request of the Deputy President of ORG , the ORG of ORG , composed of CARDINAL judges , reviewed the case under the supervisory review procedure ( пересмотр в порядке надзора ) . The applicant and his counsel were not informed of the application for supervisory review or the hearing before the ORG of ORG . They did not attend the hearing .

The court heard submissions from an acting public prosecutor of GPE , who considered it necessary to reclassify the applicant ’s actions under LAW .

The court noted that the applicant had been found guilty under LAW of LAW , in that he had procured drugs from ORG RUR CARDINAL , with a view to their sale , and had kept “ particularly large ” quantities in his possession , namely heroin weighing QUANTITY in CARDINAL sachets ; that he had then sold CARDINAL sachet containing “ particularly large ” quantities of heroin QUANTITY to CARDINAL for RUR CARDINAL and had kept the remaining “ particularly large ” quantity of heroin QUANTITY in his possession until his arrest by police on DATE .

The Presidium of ORG held :

“ ... having correctly established the facts of the case , the court gave an incorrect legal assessment thereof in the judgment . In procuring the narcotics for his personal consumption and also for [ OZ ] , at her request and with her money , in storing the narcotics and in handing over part of the heroin to [ OZ ] and keeping part of it for himself , ORG did not act with a view to selling [ drugs ] and he did not sell [ drugs ] but was acting as an accomplice to [ CARDINAL ] , who purchased heroin for her personal consumption . ”

It maintained that , in those circumstances , the applicant ’s actions should be classified under LAW as joint participation in the procurement and storage of “ particularly large ” quantities of drugs without intent to sell .

The Presidium of ORG held that the judgment of DATE and the decision of CARDINAL DATE in the applicant ’s case should be varied , convicted him under LAW and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . It upheld the judgment and decision in the remaining part . With reference to LAW of DATE , the court ordered that the applicant be released from serving his sentence and , consequently , from custody .

Section VI , LAW of LAW of DATE , ( Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс РСФСР ) , in force at the material time , allowed certain officials to challenge a judgment which had entered into force and to have the case reviewed .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , a judgment enters into force and is subject to execution as of DATE when the appeal ( cassation ) instance pronounces its judgment or , if it has not been appealed against , when the time - limit for appeal has expired .

“ The grounds for quashing or changing a judgment [ on supervisory review ] are the same as [ those for setting aside judgments which have not entered into force on cassation appeals ] . ”

“ The grounds for quashing or changing a judgment on appeal are as follows :

( i ) prejudicial or incomplete inquest , investigation or court examination ;

( ii ) inconsistency between the facts of the case and the conclusions reached by the court ;

( iii ) grave violation of procedural law ;

( iv ) misapplication of [ substantive ] law ;

( v ) inadequacy of the sentence to the gravity of offence and the convict ’s personality . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE provided that the power to lodge a request for a supervisory review could be exercised by ORG , the President of ORG of GPE and their respective Deputies in relation to any judgment other than those of the Presidium of ORG , and by the Presidents of the regional courts in respect of any judgment of a regional or subordinate court . A party to criminal or civil proceedings could solicit the intervention of such officials for a review .

According to ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE , the request for supervisory review was to be considered by the judicial board ( the ORG ) of the competent court . The court could examine the case on the merits , and was not bound by the scope and grounds of the extraordinary appeal . The ORG could dismiss or uphold the request . If the request was dismissed , the earlier judgment remained in force . If it upheld the request , the ORG could decide whether to quash the judgment and terminate the criminal proceedings , to remit the case for a new investigation , or for a fresh court examination at any instance , to uphold a first instance judgment reversed on appeal , or to amend and uphold any of the earlier judgments .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provided that the ORG could in the same proceedings reduce a sentence or amend the legal qualification of a conviction or sentence to the defendant ’s benefit . If it found a sentence or legal qualification too lenient , it had to remit the case for a new examination .

Under LAW of LAW of Criminal Procedure of DATE , a public prosecutor took part in a hearing before a supervisory review instance . A convicted person and his or her counsel could be summoned if a supervisory review court found it necessary . If summoned , they were to be given an opportunity to examine the application for supervisory review and to make oral submissions at the hearing . On DATE ORG of GPE ruled that the above provision was incompatible with LAW where the grounds for supervisory review of a case were to the detriment of a convicted person .

Under LAW of LAW , which entered into force on DATE , a convicted person and his counsel are notified of the date , time and place of hearings before the supervisory review court . They may participate in the hearing provided that they have made a specific request to that effect .

Illicit procurement or storage of drugs without intent to sell is punishable under LAW of DATE , in force at the material time . Illicit procurement or storage of drugs with intent to sell and the sale of drugs in “ particularly large ” quantities are punishable under LAW of LAW .

Under LAW of LAW , convicted persons can be released from punishment by an amnesty act . Under LAW , a person is considered not to have been convicted if he or she released from punishment .

Section CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of DATE lists a number of techniques that may be used by law - enforcement or security authorities for the purposes of , inter alia , investigating and preventing offences . In particular , the police may carry out a “ test purchase ” ( проверочная закупка ) where , inter alia , a criminal case has been opened or information concerning the preparation or commission of an offence has become known to the police and the available data are insufficient for bringing criminal proceedings ( section CARDINAL ) . The taking of operational - search measures which interfere with NORP constitutional rights to respect for their correspondence , telephone communications and home is allowed if authorised , as a general rule , by a court ( section CARDINAL) . The “ test purchase ” of goods , the free sale of which is prohibited , and certain undercover operations by agents or persons assisting them , are carried out on the basis of a decision sanctioned by the head of an agency engaged in operational - search activities ( section CARDINAL) . Results of operational - search activities can serve as a basis for bringing criminal proceedings and can be used as evidence in accordance with the legislation on criminal procedure ( section CARDINAL ) .