PREUSSISCHE TREUHAND GMBH AND CO. KG A. A. v. POLAND

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

NORP The applicant , ORG KG a . A. ( “ the applicant company ” ) , is a NORP legal person – a limited partnership DATE with its registered office in GPE . It pursued the application on behalf of , and in connection with facts concerning , CARDINAL natural persons ( “ the individual applicants ” ) , its shareholders , all NORP nationals who authorised the applicant company to act for them in the proceedings before the ORG . Their names and personal details are listed in an annex attached to the present decision . The applicant company was represented before the ORG by Mr T. Gertner , a lawyer practising in Bad LOC .

The NORP authorities prepared plans for the evacuation of NORP civilians from eastern LOC , including from what are now the western and northern parts of GPE situated east of the PERSON - Neisse line , towards the end of the Second World War . The implementation of the plans started on various dates . Most of the evacuation began in DATE and continued throughout DATE or even DATE .

The evacuation of GPE was effected in CARDINAL stages . The first took place in DATE , the second in DATE . The population was evacuated to GPE . The third stage started on DATE , during the NORP offensive , and was carried out throughout DATE . The capital city , GPE , surrendered to the NORP on DATE . ORG took control of this territory in DATE . It was later annexed to GPE and at present belongs to GPE .

The evacuation of GPE started in DATE but was delayed and further suspended ( at DATE ) on account of the fact that massive groups of people evacuated from GPE had filled the territory .

The evacuation of LOC began on DATE . The population was evacuated to GPE and GPE .

The evacuation of GPE ( ORG ) and GPE ( ORG ) started on DATE .

The NORP State , by virtue of several laws enacted in DATE and DATE , formally expropriated the property left behind by NORP following their evacuation or expulsion or still occupied by them in the former NORP territories east of the PERSON - Neisse line . The expropriation laws concerned agricultural and forest land , industry and enterprises and other “ post - NORP ” property ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

They included laws not addressed exclusively to NORP , for instance decrees on the takeover by the ORG of certain forests and the DATE nationalisation law , whereby most private owners either had their property expropriated entirely ( with or without compensation ) or could retain only a certain proportion of it . However , NORP were treated differently since size limitations did not apply to their property , which was expropriated without compensation .

The second group of laws specifically concerned the takeover of NORP property , with a separate set of regulations regarding the “ LOC ” and the confiscation of property belonging to persons NORP or others – who were disloyal to the NORP State or nation during the war . They included the Law of DATE on Abandoned and ORG ( ustawa o majątkach opuszczonych i porzuconych – “ the DATE Act ” ) , LAW on abandoned or post - NORP property ( dekret o majątkach opuszczonych i poniemieckich – “ the DATE Decree ” ) , the Decree of DATE on the agrarian system and settlement in GPE and the former GPE of Gdańsk ( dekret o ustroju rolnym i osadnictwie na obszarze PERSON i byłego PERSON – “ the September CARDINAL Decree ” ) and the Decree of DATE on the seizure of property of GPE at war with the NORP State in DATE and of property of legal persons and citizens of those GPE and on the receivership of such property ( dekret o zajęciu majątków państw pozostających z PERSON w stanie wojny w latach CARDINAL - CARDINAL i majątków osób prawnych i obywateli tych państw oraz o zarządzie przymusowym nad tymi majątkami ) .

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

In DATE , having learned of the ORG ' decision to divide GPE into occupation zones , the applicant 's family left their farm in GPE ( at present ORG ) , owned by the applicant 's father , PERSON , before the advancing ORG arrived . They reached the NORP occupation zone . The applicant submits that he has still not been allowed to return to his home and has been refused restitution of his property .

M.B. , the applicant 's mother , was driven from her family farm in ORG ( at present Roztoka ) and died , while fleeing , on CARDINAL or DATE . The applicant , as his mother 's heir , has still not been allowed to return to the family 's home and has been refused restitution of his property .

At DATE the applicant and her brothers and sisters , together with an aunt and her family , left their place of residence , ORG ( at present ORG ) , in the district of PERSON ( at present LOC ) in LOC to escape the advancing ORG . They and the other NORP had TIME to join a convoy of horse - drawn vehicles in the neighbouring village of PERSON . The applicant 's grandfather , ORG , after the applicant and her family had been forced to leave , was shot or beaten to death by NORP troops on his own farm , and the farm buildings were burned . The house , however , survived .

After spending a long time on the road and enduring severe hardship , the applicant and her family reached PERSON . They have still not been allowed to return to their home and have been refused restitution .

NORP In DATE or DATE , the applicant and his family were forced to leave their farm in GPE ( at present GPE ) . Each person was allowed to take CARDINAL suitcase . From the railway station at ORG ( at present PERSON ) , they were taken west in cattle wagons , experiencing the bombing of GPE on the way . The applicant and his family eventually reached ORG ( ORG ) . In DATE he left the former GPE and moved to GPE . He has still not been allowed to return to his property and has been refused restitution .

On DATE , the applicant 's parents and their children were forced to leave their house in GPE ( at present ORG ) since ORG was QUANTITY away and their evacuation was ordered . Nonetheless , they later returned to ORG , where , according to him , looting , rape and so on were DATE occurrences .

In DATE and DATE the first NORP arrived , taking over homes and farms . At DATE the family 's farm was confiscated by the NORP militia . The applicant 's father was later arrested by NORP , and taken without reason to the police station at GPE ( at present GPE ) , where he suffered ill - treatment for DATE . He was then brought before a judge and released . The applicant himself , whose arrest had also been planned , was forced to work for nothing on the farm without any help . Early in DATE , the NORP began to deport the NORP from ORG ( at present ORG ) . Since the family 's residence permits were due to expire on DATE , they first went to LOC and then to GPE , finally reaching the NORP occupation zone in DATE . They have still not been allowed to return to their property and have been refused restitution . The family also left behind property in GPE ( at present ORG ) .

In DATE , the applicant 's grandparents were expelled from Zoppot ( at present GPE ) . They went overland westwards .

The applicant has still not been allowed to return to his family home and restitution has been refused .

NORP In DATE the applicant 's mother and her family were expelled from their farm in PERSON ( at present ORG ) by the NORP militia . They were not allowed to take anything with them . The applicant and her mother went first to NORP neighbours , who gave them a room . The applicant 's mother had previously been denounced and falsely accused of stealing a horse 's harness from a LOC . For DATE , she was required to report DATE to the militia , where she spent DATE cleaning toilets and other rooms in the barracks , and looking on while other NORP were questioned and beaten . The applicant and her mother then went back to their home , which had been given to another LOC in the meantime . They were given the room in which the grandmother was still living , but were not allowed to use the toilet or water , and stones were thrown through their window . They also had to pay rent . Having found other quarters , they finally left in DATE .

They remained in GPE until DATE , and then travelled on a visitor 's visa to GPE , where they decided to stay and where they still live .

The applicant submits that they have repeatedly applied to the NORP authorities for restitution of their property , but have been refused on the ground that , as NORP , they have not been rehabilitated . The applicant has not submitted any documents or other evidence showing that she submitted her claims to any NORP administrative , judicial or other authority .

In DATE , the applicant 's father and his family were visited by NORP militiamen in their house in Bad Charlottenbrunn ( at present PERSON ) and told that they were to be deported at once . They were given TIME to pack essentials , and each was allowed to take QUANTITY of luggage . They marched QUANTITY to the station and were loaded onto open goods wagons . As the journey went on , many people were robbed of their last belongings . There were repeated body - searches , and NORP were ordered by loudspeaker to hand over valuables , such as savings books , and threatened with severe punishment if they failed to comply . The applicant 's father and his family eventually succeeded in reaching the Western occupation zone . The applicant has still not been allowed to return to his family home and has been refused restitution .

On DATE , following an order for NORP to leave PERSON and report in PERSON , the applicant and other members of his family fled their home . They stopped in PERSON ( at present ORG ) , where all the roads were blocked , and they could proceed no further . ORG soldiers suddenly turned up and were on the point of shooting the applicant – even old people and children had been killed simply because they were NORP – but a PERSON stepped in to protect him . All their belongings were taken , but the family escaped alive .

On DATE the NORP ordered the family to return to their home , which they reached on DATE . The house had been looted . In DATE , NORP militiamen expelled them again , and they were taken to an internment camp at GPE ( at present Damasławek ) , where the last of their belongings were taken , and where they were seriously maltreated . Eventually , they were forced to leave their homeland . They have still not been allowed to return to their home and have been refused restitution .

The applicant 's grandmother PERSON wished to stay on the family farm in PERSON ( at present Rzeck ) , but the applicant , his mother and his sister had left by ship in DATE before ORG arrived . The grandmother was shot on the farm shortly afterwards by ORG soldiers .

Since the end of the war the applicant and other members of his family have not been allowed to return to their home and have been refused restitution .

In DATE the applicant 's father and his family were driven at gunpoint from their house and market garden in Bad Charlottenbrunn ( at present PERSON ) in LOC . NORP militiamen told them that they had to be in the street and ready to leave within TIME . They marched with others under police escort to the railway station , QUANTITY away , and various pieces of their luggage were stolen on the way . They were taken in goods wagons to the district town , GPE ( at present Wałbrzych ) , where they were again searched and lost more of their belongings . They were taken towards the ORG crossing and from there to the NORP occupation zone . The applicant has still not been allowed to return to his home and restitution has been refused .

The applicant submits that his parents ' names had been entered in the PERSON ( at present GPE in GPE ) property register as CARDINAL - share owners of CARDINAL houses . They lived in , and did not flee , their home in GPE ( at present GPE , in GPE ) when the war ended . The applicant has never been able to find out what happened to his mother when ORG entered GPE . She was probably sentenced to forced labour and died in DATE . The applicant has still not been allowed to return to his property and restitution has been refused .

NORP In DATE the applicant 's grandparents still lived on their farm in LOC ( at present PERSON ) , in an area already occupied by NORP troops . TIME , anti - aircraft batteries opened up in the area and the grandparents were ordered to start moving east . They packed essentials and secretly headed west , in the hope of joining other members of the family , following the NORP army as it retreated . When the war ended on DATE , they returned to PERSON ( at present PERSON ) , where their house was the only one not yet looted . At DATE , given the time to pack only the barest of essentials , they were taken away . Those who wanted to stay were arrested or immediately shot . After stopping in various places on the way , they eventually reached the West , getting as far as the GPE .

The applicant has still not been allowed to return to her lost homeland and has been refused restitution .

On DATE the applicant and his parents fled their property in GPE with other landowners to escape the approaching ORG . They reached PERSON in GPE on DATE . The applicant has still not been allowed to return to his home and has been refused restitution .

Until DATE War , the applicant 's mother lived on her farm in ORG ( at present PERSON ) in the region of the former GPE of PERSON . On DATE she was ordered to leave . She fled with carts , heading west , eventually reaching PERSON , in the GPE district , in DATE . The applicant has still not been allowed to return to her family home and restitution has been refused .

NORP The applicant and her family were forced to leave their home in FAC ( at present GPE ) to escape the advancing ORG in DATE . They fled , eventually reaching GPE . They headed further west , and were overtaken by NORP troops in GPE . They have still not been allowed to return to their home and have been refused restitution .

On DATE , the applicant 's father and his family were forced to leave their QUANTITY farm in PERSON ( at present ORG ) . The applicant has still not been allowed to return to her home area , and has been refused restitution .

The applicant submits that his family were among those NORP who had not been deported by the NORP but were expelled by the NORP from areas east of the PERSON on DATE . They were allowed to take only bare essentials with them . The applicant 's uncle ( later declared dead on DATE ) was not in GPE ( at present PERSON ) at the time , and his wife had died there on DATE . They did not experience the expulsion – unlike the applicant and his surviving relatives , who have so far been refused rehabilitation and restitution .

The applicant 's great - aunt and her family survived the heavy air raid on PERSON ( at present Świnoujście ) , which took place on DATE , and were also left unharmed when ORG arrived on DATE . On DATE GPE took over PERSON and NORP civilians started to attack and rob NORP . In DATE the NORP militia ordered the applicant and his mother to leave , taking only the barest personal essentials with them . The applicant 's great - aunt and grandmother were at first unwilling to leave , but the threat of violence left them no choice and they eventually reached PERSON in DATE . The applicant and his mother had already fled to PERSON in DATE .

All members of his family have consistently been refused rehabilitation and restitution .

On DATE the applicant and her parents fled their home village PERSON ( at present PERSON ) in GPE ( at present LOC ) . They reached the ORG ( at present GPE in GPE , but could get no further , since all the roads were blocked by refugees . They decided to return to the lodgings they had found in the ORG district , where they saw NORP civilians murdered when ORG arrived . CARDINAL of the victims was the applicant 's father , who was shot in DATE .

In DATE , the applicant and her mother set off for their home village of PERSON , to see if their farm was still there , but the NORP who were already in possession of it immediately reported their arrival to the NORP authorities in Treuburg . Threatened with shooting and unable to reclaim their farm , their only choice was again to flee .

The family have been refused rehabilitation and restitution .

On DATE the applicant and his parents fled their home in PERSON ( at present PERSON ) , escaping the advancing ORG , first to GPE ( at present PERSON ) and then , at DATE , to PERSON . When ORG entered on CARDINAL or DATE all refugees were ordered back to their homes . At DATE , the family set out on foot , with a handcart , for their home in ORG . The parents ' houses were still occupied by NORP troops and the refugees were housed by relatives . At DATE they were expelled from GPE , and taken by goods train via Bischoffsstein ( at present Bisztynek ) to GPE , losing various belongings to thieves on the way . They eventually arrived at GPE in GPE on DATE .

The applicant , like his deceased relatives , has been refused rehabilitation and restitution .

Preußische Treuhand was founded in DATE as a self - help organisation of “ displaced persons from private NORP properties in the expulsion territories ” . It seeks to secure and execute the restitution of the confiscated properties of NORP expelled from territories which after the Second World War became parts of various eastern LOC , including GPE . FAC proclaims that it represents and promotes the ownership rights of single individuals and asserts them legally and commercially .

The Yalta Conference , which was held by the ORG leaders , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , was devoted to the final strategy of the Second World War and the proposed future occupation of GPE . It was agreed that the new border between GPE and GPE would be drawn along the PERSON line , which meant that part of GPE 's eastern border was to be fixed along LOC , whose central course formed part of that line , and that the NORP eastern provinces ( at present , parts of GPE , GPE and GPE ) were to be annexed to GPE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . GPE was to be granted territorial compensation in the west . PERSON proposed the PERSON - Neisse line as a new NORP border but the matter was eventually left for decision at the further conference , which was held in GPE .

LAW , an agreement on policy for the occupation and reconstruction of GPE after the Second World War and the NORP surrender of CARDINAL DATE , adopted by ORG of GPE ) , GPE ( GPE ) and ORG ( GPE ) ( “ the CARDINAL Powers ” ) , set out , among other things , the principles governing war reparations from GPE ( LAW : “ Reparations from GPE ” ) , the delimitation of the border with GPE ( Chapter VIII B : “ Western frontier of GPE ” ) and the repatriation of NORP nationals to GPE ( Chapter PERSON : “ Orderly transfer of NORP population ” ) .

The provisions of the chapter “ Reparations from GPE ” read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Reparation claims of the GPE shall be met by removals from the zone of GPE occupied by the GPE and from appropriate external NORP assets .

NORP The GPE undertakes to settle the reparation claims of GPE from its own share of reparations . ”

The sub - chapter “ Western frontier of GPE ” reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ The CARDINAL heads of Government agree that , pending the final determination of GPE 's western frontier , the former NORP territories east of a line running from LOC immediately west of PERSON , and thence along LOC to the confluence of LOC and along LOC to the NORP frontier , including that portion of GPE not placed under the administration of ORG in accordance with the understanding reached at this conference and including the area of the former GPE of PERSON , shall be under the administration of the NORP State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the NORP zone of occupation in GPE . ”

The chapter “ Orderly transfer of NORP populations ” reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ORG , having considered the question in all its aspects , recognise that the transfer to GPE of NORP populations , or elements thereof , remaining in GPE , GPE and GPE , will have to be undertaken . They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner .

Since the influx of a large number of NORP into GPE would increase the burden already resting on the occupying authorities , they consider that ORG in GPE should in the first instance examine the problem , with special regard to the question of the equitable distribution of these NORP among the several zones of occupation . They are accordingly instructing their respective representatives on ORG to report to their ORG as soon as possible the extent to which such persons have already entered GPE from GPE , GPE and GPE , to submit an estimate of the time and rate at which further transfers could be carried out having regard to the present situation in GPE .

ORG , ORG and ORG in GPE are at the same time being informed of the above and are being requested meanwhile to suspend further expulsions pending an examination by the ORG concerned of the report from their representatives on ORG . ”

The issue of war reparations for GPE , which in accordance with LAW were to be settled by GPE from its share ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , was resolved by a bilateral treaty between the GPE and GPE , namely the Agreement of DATE between ORG and the government of the GPE on compensation for financial losses sustained during the NORP occupation ( umowa między PERSON RP a ORG o wynagrodzeniu szkód finansowych wyrządzonych przez okupację niemiecką ) . Under the terms of the agreement , the GPE relinquished to GPE all its claims to NORP assets located on NORP territory , including the portion of NORP territory east of the PERSON - Neisse line that was to be assigned to GPE . It was assumed that this treaty constituted an instrument for the implementation of LAW and a basis for GPE 's takeover of NORP property located in GPE within the borders as fixed by that Agreement .

The so - called “ Treaty of PERSON , that is , the Agreement concerning the demarcation of the established and the existing NORP ORG frontier , was signed by the heads of government of NORP People 's Republic and GPE ( “ the former GPE ” ) in GPE ( in NORP , PERSON ) on DATE . It recognised and acknowledged the PERSON - Neisse line as referred to in LAW as the border between GPE and the former GPE . The treaty , although considered valid and binding by GPE , was not accepted by the authorities of the former GPE ( “ the former FRG ” ) .

The LAW between the German Democratic Republic and the Polish People 's Republic on the Delimitation of LOC in LOC , concluded on CARDINAL DATE , was a subsequent instrument aimed at the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty of Zgorzelec concerning the NORP state border . It concerned the delimitation of the territorial sea , the continental shelf and the fishery zones of both GPE .

The Agreement between the Polish GPE and GPE concerning the basis for normalisation of their mutual relations , also called LAW ( in NORP , PERSON ) , was an agreement concluded by the former ORG and GPE on DATE . It was ratified by the ORG 's ORG ( GPE ) on CARDINAL DATE . Under the terms of that LAW , the parties committed themselves to non - violence , affirming that any disputes between them were to be resolved by peaceful means , that they would refrain from the use , or the threat , of force and that they would take steps aimed at full normalisation and further development of their mutual relations .

LAW read :

“ ( CARDINAL ) GPE and GPE state in mutual agreement that the existing boundary line , the course of which is laid down in LAW of the decisions of ORG of DATE as running from LOC immediately west of PERSON , and thence along LOC to the confluence of LOC and along LOC to the NORP frontier , shall constitute the western ORG frontier of NORP People 's Republic .

( CARDINAL ) They reaffirm the inviolability of their existing frontiers now and in the future and undertake to respect each other 's territorial integrity without restriction .

( CARDINAL ) They declare that they have no territorial claims whatsoever against each other and that they will not assert such claims in the future . ”

After NORP reunification by virtue of LAW ( Einigungsvertrag ) of DATE , the frontier between GPE and GPE , as established under LAW and endorsed by further treaties with former separate GPE , was confirmed by LAW DATE in the following way :

“ The Contracting Parties reaffirm the frontier between them , whose course is defined in the Agreement between GPE and GPE concerning the demarcation of the established and existing NORP ORG frontier of CARDINAL DATE and agreements concluded with a view to implementing and supplementing ORG confirming the demarcation of the ORG frontier between GPE and GPE of DATE ; Agreement between the Polish People 's Republic and the GPE regarding the delimitation of the sea areas in LOC of CARDINAL DATE , as well as the LAW between the Polish People 's Republic and GPE concerning the basis for normalisation of their mutual relations of DATE ) . ”

“ The Contracting Parties declare that the frontier between them is inviolable DATE and in future and mutually pledge to respect unconditionally their sovereignty and territorial integrity . ”

“ The Contracting Parties declare that they have no territorial claims against each other and they shall not put forward such claims in future . ”

Under LAW , any movable or immovable property which in connection with the war that began on DATE was not in the possession of its owners or their legal heirs or representatives was considered abandoned property . Section CARDINAL stated that any movable or immovable property which had been owned or possessed by the NORP ORG and on the date of the entry into force of LAW had not yet been taken over by the NORP authorities , as well as property of NORP citizens or persons who had defected , was considered “ derelict property ” for the purposes of that LAW . Under LAW , all abandoned or derelict property was placed under ORG administration . In contrast to NORP – “ derelict ” – property , abandoned property could be repossessed by the owners or their close relatives on application .

The DATE Decree replaced LAW . It entered into force on DATE and was repealed on DATE .

As regards the CARDINAL types of property referred to therein , “ abandoned ” covered mostly property owned by NORP in GPE , possession of which they had lost in consequence of the war and the Holocaust , whereas “ post - NORP ” covered property owned by ORG and NORP natural and legal persons .

“ Abandoned property ” was defined by LAW . This provision read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . Any property ( movable or immovable ) of persons who in connection with the war that began on DATE lost and did not subsequently recover possession of it shall be considered abandoned property within the meaning of this Decree . ”

Under sections CARDINAL et seq . , owners of abandoned property could apply for , and obtain , its restoration . The deadline for making such applications was set at DATE . The ORG acquired ownership of such property by prescription within DATE ( as regards movables ) and DATE ( as regards immovable property ) , which started running “ at the end of the calendar year in which the war ended ” .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL , “ post - NORP ” property was to be taken over by the ORG and neither compensation nor restoration procedures applied . LAW read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . By virtue of the law , any of the following kinds of property shall , in its entirety , be taken over by ORG :

( a ) belonging to ORG and the former GPE of Gdańsk ;

( b ) belonging to citizens of ORG and the former GPE of Gdańsk ;

( c ) belonging to NORP and Gdańsk legal persons , except public - law legal persons ;

( d ) belonging to companies controlled by NORP or ORG citizens or by the NORP or PERSON administration ;

( e ) belonging to persons who have defected .

CARDINAL ) The preceding provision shall not apply to the necessary personal items belonging to the persons referred to in subsections ( a ) and ( b ) . ”

The September CARDINAL Decree entered into force on DATE and , although amended on several occasions , has not yet been repealed .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL , all agricultural and forest land ( the latter if its surface exceeded QUANTITY ) , except for land already owned by natural persons , was designated for securing a pool of property for NORP citizens who moved there within the framework of the “ settlement action ” carried out by the authorities . The action concerned mostly persons resettled from the former eastern provinces of GPE beyond LOC , taken over by GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

This was the final decree on the expropriation of property of NORP persons . Its purpose was to secure the definite takeover of property which might not have been covered by the previous expropriation laws .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

In DATE the ORG authorities took CARDINAL hectares of land from a relative of the applicants . No compensation was paid to the owner .

The applicants unsuccessfully claimed restitution of the land under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . In particular , in a judgment of DATE ORG held , in a review of the decisions made at lower levels of jurisdiction , that the land had been formally transferred to the ORG pursuant to LAW . LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL did not include such a situation as grounds for restitution of property . The applicants could have claimed restitution of the land earlier , under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , but they had not done so .

On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG . They alleged a breach of LAW , and also of their constitutional right to own property .

NORP In particular , the applicants argued that the land had been expropriated without compensation . It was therefore liable to restitution under section MONEY ) and ( n ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , irrespective of the fact that that law contained no reference to LAW . They referred to ORG judgment QUANTITY CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , which found that a situation similar to that of the applicants fell under PERSON no . MONEY .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint ( decision III . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It held that ORG had given sufficient reasons for its judgment , which was neither arbitrary nor otherwise contrary to the constitutional principles . It was not for ORG to review the way in which ordinary courts interpreted and applied the law unless it resulted in a breach of LAW .

The decision was served on DATE .

Law no CARDINAL/CARDINAL governs restitution of agricultural land and forests .

Cases in which land is to be restored to owners or their successors are listed in section CARDINAL . In particular , sub - section CARDINAL(m ) of section CARDINAL refers to situations where land has been expropriated without compensation . Subsection PERSON ) refers to nationalisation contrary to the legal rules then in force or without compensation .

In its judgment CARDINAL CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ORG held that transfer of property under LAW without compensation was to be qualified as a reason for restitution of such property under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(m ) of LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Any other interpretation of that provision would run contrary to LAW .

The same conclusion was reached in judgment CARDINAL Sžo CARDINAL of DATE as rectified by the decision under the same file number of CARDINAL DATE .

In an unspecified number of other decisions ORG expressed a different view on the matter , namely the same as expressed in the above judgment on the applicant ’s case of DATE .

In judgment PERSON . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ORG found , with reference to ORG judgments QUANTITY CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL Sžo CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , that the varying practice on the part of ORG when determining whether expropriation of land under Ordinance CARDINAL/CARDINAL fell under PERSON no . MONEY ran contrary to the principle of legal certainty . That in itself justified the conclusion that the plaintiff ’s constitutional rights had been breached .

In the same judgment the Constitutional Court further found that ORG view , that land expropriated under Ordinance CARDINAL/CARDINAL could not be restored under PERSON no . MONEY , was formalistic and contrary to the purpose of that PERSON . The explanatory report to PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL specified that it extended to individuals who could have , but had not , submitted their claim within time - limits set in different pieces of legislation which had been enacted previously .

The Constitutional Court quashed ORG judgment in issue and returned the case to the latter .

Subsequently , similar views and conclusions were reached in other judgments of ORG . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL , III . ÚS CARDINAL or I. ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant ’s dog , a pit - bull terrier , attacked an DATE child , severely biting and injuring him . The prosecution instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( causing medium bodily harm by negligence ) , which were subsequently discontinued , as no evidence of a crime was disclosed .

Nevertheless , in its decision of DATE , the police found the applicant guilty of an administrative offence . The decision stated that the applicant ’s dog had bitten the child , and thus the applicant was liable under LAW ( a breach of the pet - keeping rules , causing an injury ) . She was fined LTL CARDINAL ( about LAW ) . The applicant did not dispute that decision , and paid the fine .

On DATE the prosecution re - opened the criminal proceedings against the applicant .

On DATE a fresh medical expert examination confirmed the seriousness of the injuries caused to the boy , finding that he would need plastic surgery .

On DATE the applicant was charged with causing medium bodily harm by negligence ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) and remanded on bail , with a written obligation not to leave her place of residence . The applicant did not appeal against this restriction .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant . It was established that the applicant was not guilty of a criminal offence but rather of an administrative violation for which she had already been punished .

On DATE ORG reversed this judgment , finding the applicant guilty . The appellate court noted the gravity of the injuries sustained by the boy ( bite wounds on his nose , forehead , cheeks , arm and leg ) . The court also found that the applicant ’s behaviour had been negligent , in that she had walked her dog without a muzzle , although the animal was of a dangerous breed . In view of these factors , the court concluded that the applicant ’s acts must attract criminal rather than administrative responsibility . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , but the sentence was rescinded by virtue of an amnesty act . The applicant lodged a cassation appeal .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction . It established that the applicant had been criminally liable for having caused medium bodily harm by negligence .

ORG noted that in cases where the same acts attracted both criminal and administrative liability , the nature of the offence was a criterion determining which procedure ought to be applied . In particular , if the nature of the act made it punishable under the criminal law , the person should be held liable under criminal law . If the nature of the offence was not such as to attract criminal liability , a person would be held liable under the administrative law . ORG went on to say :

“ It was established that the applicant had caused medium bodily harm by negligence , therefore , she has been rightly convicted under LAW .

The fact that [ the applicant ] has been punished for the same acts by way of an administrative procedure is not a valid ground to discontinue the criminal proceedings , since such a ground is not foreseen by LAW . However , a person can not be punished twice for the same offence , because it is contrary to LAW . Since [ the applicant ] has been reasonably convicted under LAW , the issue of the lawfulness of the administrative decision to fine [ the applicant ] can be reconsidered in accordance with LAW ] . ”

LAW states as follows :

“ ... Punishment may be imposed or applied on the grounds established by law . No one may be punished for the same criminal offence twice . ... ”

ORG Article CARDINAL of LAW ( as then in force ) stipulated :

“ A person shall be held liable only when the act committed is forbidden by a criminal statute which came into force before the commission of the offence ...

No one shall be punished for the same criminal act twice ... ”

The then LAW provided for criminal liability for causing serious or medium bodily harm by negligence .

LAW ( as then in force ) provided :

“ Any person who breaches pet - keeping rules - approved by ORG - shall be punished by a warning or fine of CARDINAL litai . The same act , committed repeatedly or when causing damage to the health or property of others - shall be punished by a fine CARDINAL litai . ”

The then LAW provided for a right of appeal against a decision to impose an administrative penalty .

The then LAW stipulated :

“ Where a decision finding a person liable for an administrative offence has been quashed , the [ fine ] paid shall be reimbursed ... and other restrictions relating to the [ administrative penalty ] shall be repealed . ”


Preliminary objection allowed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;No violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Examination of the case);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment;Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Liberty of person);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Take proceedings);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Release pending trial);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award

The applicants are brothers , born in DATE and DATE respectively . It appears that the first applicant currently resides in GPE , and the second applicant lives in GPE , GPE .

The facts of the case , particularly those surrounding the period of the applicants ' detention in custody , are partially in dispute between the parties .

The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The ORG 's submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below ( paragraphs CARDINAL - DATE ) . The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D below ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Prior to the events described below , the first applicant , an engineer by profession , lived with his wife and CARDINAL children in PERSON , a suburb of Grozny . The second applicant , a school teacher by profession , lived in GPE and moved to GPE in DATE with his wife and CARDINAL children .

NORP In DATE hostilities started in GPE between the NORP armed forces and NORP rebel fighters . The city of PERSON and its suburbs formed the target of wide - scale attacks by the NORP military . In DATE a housing agency in ORG certified the destruction of the first applicant 's flat as a result of the hostilities .

Fearing the attacks , the applicants moved their families and valuables to their parent 's house ( hereinafter “ the house of the PERSON family ” ) at CARDINAL Matrosov Street in the town of ORG . According to the applicants , the items of their property stored in the house had included the first applicant 's tape - recorder , a hi - fi system , a video camera and the second applicant 's TV set and a video player . Other items of electronics and clothing were also stored in the house . The documents and purchase receipts in respect of the valuables were kept separately in a suitcase . Most items were stored in CARDINAL of the rooms of the house and in the cellar .

On DATE officers from ORG of ORG ( временный районный отдел внутренних дел Ачхой-Мартановского района – “ PERSON ” ) searched the house at CARDINAL FAC for firearms . According to the applicants , the search was not officially authorised or documented . The officers took with them a new packaged cordless telephone set with batteries and an antenna .

On DATE the second applicant complained to the head of ORG that the search had been unlawful and asked for the telephone set to be returned . It appears that at DATE , after the applicants ' father had submitted a request to the district military prosecutor , the telephone set was returned .

On DATE at CARDINAL TIME several officers of ORG again arrived at the house at CARDINAL FAC . The applicants and their families were at home at TIME . The officers searched the house , without producing any warrants or official justification for their action . They seized several items of electronic equipment belonging to the applicants , documents for equipment and personal documents of some of the family members . The officers then asked the applicants to come with them to ORG for TIME to help them to deal with paperwork .

According to the applicants , once they got into the car , the officers told them that they were under arrest and started to beat them . The applicants were taken to ORG and put into separate cells .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicants ' house was again searched . CARDINAL servicemen in CARDINAL cars had arrived at the house and taken away all the electronic equipment found in the house , including a printer , TV sets and video equipment . No official justification for the search and seizure had been presented . The applicants submitted a list of items seized at their house ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

DATE the applicants were detained in FAC . While in custody they were questioned about the activities of the NORP rebel fighters and about kidnappings for ransom , but denied their involvement in any crimes .

During the detention and interrogations , which took place in a cell situated on the third floor of ORG premises , the applicants were subjected to various forms of torture and ill - treatment . In particular , they were fettered to a chair and beaten ; electric shocks were applied to various parts of their bodies , including their fingertips and ears ; they were forced to stand for a long time in a stretched position , with their feet and hands spread wide apart ; their arms were twisted ; they were beaten with rubber truncheons and with plastic bottles filled with water ; they were strangled with adhesive tape , with a cellophane bag and a gas mask ; dogs were set on them ; parts of their skin were torn away with pliers .

The first applicant was interrogated on DATE of detention and told to sign a confession . When he refused , the interrogators fettered him to a chair and kicked him . They put a gas mask on his face and released cigarette smoke into it . The first applicant lost consciousness and was brought back to his cell . The following day he was again taken for questioning to the same room . Wires were applied to his fingertips and the interrogators turned the handle of a device , which they called a “ lie detector ” , and which gave the first applicant electric shocks .

The second applicant was also interrogated on DATE of detention . He was brought to a room in which there were CARDINAL officers , who told him to confess that he had been a rebel fighter and that he had been involved in kidnappings . When the second applicant refused to sign a confession , he was placed against the wall , handcuffed , and his mouth was covered with adhesive tape . CARDINAL of the interrogators started beating him on his back and genitals , while the other held a machine - gun and threatened to shoot him if he moved . The second applicant was beaten for TIME and then taken back to his cell .

On several occasions during the detention the personnel of ORG came into the cells and beat all inmates , including the applicants .

There were no toilets in the cells , and the detainees were taken out to the toilets one by CARDINAL . They were forced to run all the way to the toilets and if they were slow , they were beaten with rifle butts and chased with dogs . In the toilets they were not allowed enough time . Sometimes they were not allowed to go to the toilets and had to urinate and defecate in the corridor in full view of the guards .

NORP The cells were unheated and damp and the applicants were constantly suffering from cold .

According to the applicants , on DATE they and some other detainees were taken out of ORG , blindfolded and put into a vehicle . The guards told them that they were going to execute them . Instead , the detainees , including the applicants , were transferred to another detention centre . Later they found out that the place was the GPE detention centre ( следственный изолятор с. LAW “ the GPE SIZO ” ) . The detainees , including the applicants , were forced out of the vehicle , ordered to prostrate themselves and beaten . They were then taken to cells .

The applicants were not subjected to a medical examination upon their admission to GPE , as prescribed by the relevant legislation .

At the beginning of their detention in GPE , the applicants were questioned DATE and later about once a week . They were forced to run to the interrogation room with their heads lowered and their hands across their heads , while the guards beat them on their backs . There was an iron table , a chair and a hook on the wall in the interrogation room . The interrogators , who never drew up any transcripts of interrogations , put pressure on the applicants to force them to confess or simply beat them . The interrogators also kicked the applicants with boots , rifle butts and mallets on different parts of their bodies , in particular their knee caps , threatened the applicants with a knife pressed against their fingers , put tarpaulin gauntlets on the applicants and then tied their hands to the hook and beat them , squashed the applicants ' fingers and toes with mallets or a door of a safe , tied the applicants ' hands and feet together behind their backs ( “ swallow ” position ) , strangled the applicants with adhesive tape or a cellophane bag , and applied electric shocks to the applicants ' fingers .

The applicants were also beaten by the guards when they were taken out of their cells for TIME exercise ” .

The applicants ' lawyer , Mr PERSON , was only given access to them once during the entire period of their detention in GPE , namely at some point in DATE . The applicants were allowed to meet with him CARDINAL by CARDINAL , in the presence of a police officer . They were required to speak NORP during the meeting and the lawyer could only ask them how they were doing .

During their detention in the PERSON the applicants were kept in separate cells , except for DATE in DATE , which they spent in the same cell .

The second applicant spent DATE in cell no . TIME and a CARDINAL in cell no . CARDINAL . For the remainder of his detention the second applicant was in cell no . CARDINAL . That latter cell was designated for CARDINAL people , whilst CARDINAL inmates were detained in it . The second applicant had to sleep on the floor on a mattress which was given to him .

According to the applicants , the conditions of their detention improved in DATE after the guards had been replaced by a new shift and after the representatives of ORG ( “ the ICRC ” ) had visited the PERSON on DATE . The second applicant managed to talk to the representatives of the ICRC personally , in a confidential meeting , because he spoke LANGUAGE .

There were CARDINAL more visits by the representatives of the ICRC in DATE . Those visits enabled the applicants to exchange messages with their families . In DATE the ICRC office in GPE , Kabardino - Balkaria , issued the applicants with certificates confirming that they had been visited by the LAW in GPE on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL August DATE .

On DATE the applicants were brought back to ORG and informed that they had been charged with kidnapping and participation in an unlawful armed group under ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . According to the applicants , it was the first time that they had been officially informed of the charges against them .

On DATE the applicants were released from detention subject to a written undertaking not to leave their place of residence .

On DATE the applicants were brought by their relatives to ORG hospital . They were examined by a general practitioner , a neuropathologist and a surgeon . The first applicant was diagnosed with repeated craniocerebral traumas , resulting in intracranial hypertension and post - traumatic stress disorder , chronic bronchitis , chronic CARDINAL - sided pyelonephritis , asthenoneurotic syndrome , hypochromic anaemia , numerous blunt injuries to the head , body and extremities , and chronic pneumonia in the left lung . The second applicant was diagnosed with repeated craniocerebral traumas , resulting in intracranial hypertension and posttraumatic stress disorder , numerous blunt injuries to the head , body and extremities and a trauma of the left knee - cap , chronic pneumonia in the left lung and chronic left - sided pyelonephritis . The doctors noted down that the traumas and other medical conditions had apparently been sustained in the PERSON DATE .

In letters of CARDINAL October CARDINAL the prosecutor 's office of ORG ( Ачхой-Мартановская районная прокуратура – “ the district prosecutor 's office ” ) informed the applicants that criminal proceedings in case no . DATE opened against them under ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW had been discontinued on DATE , as their involvement in the imputed offences had not been proven . The letters stated that the applicants had been relieved of their obligation not to leave their place of residence and that they could appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to a superior prosecutor or to a court within DATE .

From DATE the applicants ' relatives , both orally and in writing , applied repeatedly to various official bodies concerning the searches in their house and seizure of their property , as well as the applicants ' arrest on DATE and their subsequent detention . After the applicants had been released , they joined their relatives in these efforts . They were supported by human rights NGOs . These attempts yielded little result . On several occasions , the applicants ' family members received copies of letters from various authorities directing their complaints to the district prosecutor 's office , ORG or the prosecutor 's office of GPE ( прокуратура Чеченской PERSON DATE “ the NORP prosecutor 's office ” ) .

On TIME DATE the applicants ' relatives went to ORG and enquired about the applicants ' whereabouts . They were informed that the ORG brothers had been asked to help with paperwork and would soon return home . The applicants did not return DATE .

On DATE the applicants ' father went to ORG to find out where his sons were . The officials informed him that the brothers had been detained on suspicion of having kidnapped NORP soldiers for ransom . The suspicion was allegedly based on military uniformed overcoats found in the house . The applicants ' father replied that these were old - style NORP military overcoats , no longer used in the army , that his sons had brought them home after their service in the NORP army and that he had used them for various household needs .

On DATE ORG , acting on behalf of the PERSON family , requested the Special Representative of the NORP President for Rights and Freedoms in GPE ( ORG представитель ORG по соблюдению прав и свобод человека PERSON ) to clarify the reasons for the applicants ' arrest on DATE and complained that the searches , seizures and arrests had been unlawful .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG replied to an enquiry of a deputy of ORG sent on the applicants ' behalf . The letter stated that criminal proceedings against the applicants had been instituted by the district prosecutor 's office on suspicion of the applicants ' involvement in criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . It continued that on DATE the case file had been forwarded to ORG of ORG for LOC ( ORG управление NORP прокуратуры PERSON – “ ORG for the LOC ” ) to be joined with other cases related to the military actions in GPE and indicated that further information could be obtained from that Office .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor 's office informed the applicants ' brother that the criminal investigation against the applicants was being conducted by ORG for LOC , and that therefore further enquiries should be addressed there .

On DATE the applicants ' father submitted a complaint about the seizure of property to the head of ORG . The latter replied in an undated letter that the items allegedly seized at the house of the PERSON family were not registered as being kept in ORG . The letter further stated that the prosecutor 's office of ORG had instituted criminal proceedings against the applicants , but did not indicate the date on which the proceedings had been commenced . It continued that in the context of those proceedings “ an inspection of the scene of the incident ” had been carried out in the house of the PERSON family , in accordance with the relevant provision of the national legislation . Furthermore , a report on the results of that “ inspection ” was kept in the file of the criminal case against the applicants and the items seized during the “ inspection ” in the house of the ORG family were listed in that report . The letter concluded that the seized property should be kept in the case file and invited the applicants ' father to apply to the NORP prosecutor 's office for any information regarding the proceedings against the applicants .

On DATE the applicants ' brother complained to the Special Representative of the NORP President for Rights and Freedoms in GPE about the applicants ' unlawful detention on DATE as well as the searches and seizures in the house of the PERSON family .

On DATE the deputy head of ORG informed the applicants ' father that the applicants had been detained on DATE [ rather than on DATE , pursuant to LAW of LAW .

On DATE the same officer of ORG informed the applicants ' father that the items seized in his house had been attached to the case file of the criminal investigation , and that the decision regarding the release of those items could only be taken by an official in charge of the investigation , or a competent court .

On DATE the applicants ' father sent a request concerning the lawfulness of the searches and seizures in his house and the applicants ' detention on DATE to the NORP prosecutor 's office .

DATE . On DATE the NORP prosecutor 's office replied to the applicants ' father that the applicants had been arrested in connection with the criminal charges brought against them under ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , namely kidnapping and participation in an illegal armed group , and that the period of their remand in custody had been extended until DATE by the NORP prosecutor , but did not specify the date of the extension order . The applicants ' father was invited to apply to the district prosecutor 's office for information on the results of the investigation in the applicants ' criminal case .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor 's office informed the applicants ' brother that , following his complaint concerning the unlawfulness of the searches and seizures in the house of the PERSON family , as well as the applicants ' detention , the division of internal security of ORG had commenced an internal inquiry ( служебная проверка ) into the seizure and destruction of “ radio equipment and transmitting devices and personal property ” belonging to his brothers . The letter further stated that the applicants had been released from detention on DATE subject to an undertaking not to leave their permanent place of residence .

On DATE the applicants ' brother applied to the district prosecutor 's office for information concerning the items seized in their family house in DATE .

On DATE the ORG , acting on the applicants ' behalf , complained to the NORP prosecutor 's office , giving a detailed description of severe ill - treatment of the applicants and the alleged procedural violations during the applicants ' detention in ORG and GPE from DATE until DATE . The letter referred to the medical documents in support of the complaints regarding ill - treatment and requested that criminal proceedings in connection with the applicants ' allegations be instituted . A copy of the letter was forwarded to ORG . The latter replied on DATE that the complaint had been forwarded to the NORP prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the applicants ' brother requested ORG to provide him with an update concerning the internal inquiry into the seizure of the property in DATE . On DATE he filed another request concerning the update on the complaints concerning the property and the arrest and detention of his relatives . No reply was received to any of these requests .

On DATE and on DATE the PERSON again wrote to the NORP prosecutor 's office , referring to their letter of CARDINAL October CARDINAL . On DATE they requested the same information from the district prosecutor 's office .

In DATE all male members of the PERSON family received a summons to appear at the district prosecutor 's office on DATE . The first applicant was outside GPE at that time , but the second applicant and the applicants ' father and brother appeared . They were invited to talk to an investigator of the prosecutor 's office CARDINAL by CARDINAL .

According to the second applicant , the prosecutor of ORG and an investigator of the same office proposed that he should write a statement withdrawing all claims against ORG concerning the lawfulness and conditions of detention . In case of refusal , they threatened to re - open the criminal proceedings against both applicants . The second applicant was allowed to consult his relatives , whereupon he decided to sign the requested statement .

By letter of DATE the investigator of the district prosecutor 's office replied to the PERSON that following the examination of their complaint , the prosecutor 's office had decided to dispense with criminal proceedings . The letter did not state the reasons for that decision , but informed the PERSON of the possibility of appealing against it to superior prosecutors or to a court . A copy of the decision of DATE was not enclosed .

On DATE the PERSON challenged the decision of DATE before the NORP prosecutor . They enclosed a copy of their complaint of DATE , referred to the pressure put on the second applicant to repudiate his statements concerning the ill - treatment and reiterated their request that a criminal investigation into the applicants ' allegations of ill - treatment in ORG and GPE be opened .

In a letter of DATE the acting prosecutor of ORG informed the PERSON that the district prosecutor 's office had studied the complaint concerning “ illicit methods of investigation ” applied to the applicants and decided not to open criminal proceedings in the absence of evidence of a crime in the actions of the personnel of ORG . The letter further stated that the second applicant had been invited to the district prosecutor 's office where he had confirmed the fact of his detention at FAC and GPE , but had denied that “ illicit methods of investigation ” had ever been applied to him , whilst the first applicant could not be questioned because he had left GPE . The letter went on to say that no objective information proving the allegations of ill - treatment had been obtained , and that the PERSON had already been informed of the results of the examination of their complaint by letter no . CARDINAL dated DATE .

On DATE the applicants ' brother applied to the NORP prosecutor 's office for information on the developments in the internal inquiry commenced in connection with his complaints about the searches and seizures in their house . It does not appear that any reply from the authorities followed .

On DATE [ erroneously dated DATE ] the NORP prosecutor 's office replied to the PERSON 's complaint of DATE , informing them that an internal inquiry had been carried out in connection with their request that the decision of DATE be quashed . The letter stated that “ the decision of the district prosecutor 's office to dispense with criminal proceedings in respect of the applicants ' complaint concerning ill - treatment by the personnel of ORG and PERSON [ during their detention DATE ] was well - founded and lawful and that [ the applicants ' ] complaints were found to be unsubstantiated ” .

At some point the PERSON requested the district prosecutor 's office to send them a copy of the decision of DATE concerning the refusal to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicants ' allegations of ill - treatment during their detention from DATE until DATE . On DATE the district prosecutor 's office replied that the PERSON had been notified of the results of the examination of their complaint and of their right to appeal and that , according to LAW then in force , the investigator was not obliged to forward a copy of such decision to a person who had sought the institution of proceedings . The reply also stated that the second applicant had been apprised of the document in question .

On DATE officers of ORG carried out a passport check in the town of ORG . During the check in the house at CARDINAL [ rather than CARDINAL ] FAC , the applicants ' father voluntarily surrendered an FT-CARDINAL radio station and accessory equipment , technical documentation in foreign languages for that radio station , a personal military card of serviceman PERSON , who had previously been kidnapped by unidentified persons , a camouflage cloak , a bullet - proof vest and CARDINAL registration plates for cars and tractors . Following the voluntary surrender of the items , a formal note ( акт ) was drawn up on DATE , and on DATE an investigator of ORG decided not to open a criminal investigation in this connection .

On the basis of the information obtained during the check of DATE , on DATE the applicants ' house was “ inspected ” ( осмотр ) by a police officer of ORG , Mr PERSON , in the presence of attesting witnesses . During that “ inspection ” police officer GPE found CARDINAL military overcoats and QUANTITY military jackets , all bearing numbers and personal details of federal servicemen , details from a radio transmitting device , tapes with recordings of PERSON interview , a video recording of a documentary called ' GPE – the Day of Freedom ' , photographs of exhumations , photographs of the first applicant armed , a computer and diskettes with information concerning tapping of radio and telephone conversations of the members of ORG in DATE , lists of mobile telephone numbers of the top - ranking officials of GPE and leaders of the illegal armed groups , outlines of eavesdropping transmitters , and other materials that , in the ORG 's submission , “ could be indicative of the applicants ' participation in illegal armed groups . ”

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicants under Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( aggravated kidnapping ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( participation in an illegal armed group ) of LAW on the basis of the results of the check of DATE and the inspection of DATE . The case file was assigned the number DATE and then DATE .

On DATE the applicants were apprehended pursuant to LAW , then in force , and placed in detention in ORG .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that the investigation into the circumstances of the disclosure of the items during the check on DATE had been incomplete and the materials of that check were included in the file of the criminal proceedings opened against the applicants .

DATE . On DATE the district prosecutor 's office ordered that a preventive measure in the form of custody be taken against the applicants for their suspected involvement in kidnapping and participation in illegal armed groups . These orders were then forwarded for execution to GPE .

On DATE both applicants were formally charged with criminal offences under Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

Since DATE Mr PERSON , a member of ORG , had been admitted to the criminal proceedings against the applicants as their defence counsel .

On DATE the applicants were transferred to the Chernokozovo SIZO and underwent a medical examination , as required by relevant legal acts . The first applicant was diagnosed with a head trauma and subsequently received medical assistance in this connection . The examination revealed no other injuries on the applicants . While in detention , the second applicant received medical treatment in respect of chronic gastritis .

On DATE the applicants were released subject to an undertaking not to leave their place of residence .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicants with reference to the absence of sufficient evidence proving their involvement in the imputed offences .

On DATE the decision of DATE was set aside by the NORP prosecutor 's office and the criminal proceedings against the applicants were resumed .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office again discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicants in view of the fact that the applicants ' involvement in the imputed offences had not been proven .

DATE . On DATE the decision of DATE was quashed by the NORP prosecutor 's office and the case forwarded for additional investigation . It appears that the proceedings are pending at present and that in the context of these proceedings some investigative steps were taken in respect of the second applicant in DATE .

Among a considerable number of other documents , the applicants submitted an undated list of items seized from their house , countersigned by their mother , CARDINAL attesting witnesses and police officer PERSON from ORG . The document listed a ORG TV set , a ORG set , a ORG set , a ORG set , a ORG video recorder , a ORG video recorder , a ORG tape recorder , a Lexmark printer , a “ Rus ” film projector , a power adapter , a heater with CARDINAL sets of exchangeable details , video and audio tapes , CARDINAL briefcases of documents , and an “ LOC ” charging device .

They also submitted written eye - witness statements from their father , sister and CARDINAL neighbours confirming the search and seizure of the PERSON ' property as well as the applicants ' apprehension on DATE .

In order to be able to assess the merits of the applicants ' complaints , at the admissibility stage the ORG invited the ORG to submit documents from the file of the criminal investigation opened against the applicants as well as documents from the inquiry into the applicants ' complaints concerning their ill - treatment and lawfulness of their detention , as well as those relating to the searches in the house of the PERSON family and the seizure of their property . The documents submitted by the ORG , both before and after the case was declared partly admissible , may be summarised as follows .

A handwritten document with an illegible title , drawn up on DATE by a police officer of ORG , recorded the seizure of an FT-CARDINAL radio station and accessory equipment , technical documentation for that radio station , a camouflage cloak , a bullet - proof vest , CARDINAL registration plates for cars and tractors and a personal military card of serviceman PERSON It was indicated in the document that a copy of it had been given to the applicants ' father . The document was signed by the police officer who had drawn it up and the applicants ' father . In a report of DATE the same police officer informed his superiors of the seizure of the aforementioned items at the house at CARDINAL FAC in LOC and indicated that they had been surrendered by the applicants ' father .

The Government did not furnish the ORG with any documents concerning the search of DATE .

By a decision of DATE an investigator of the prosecutor 's office of ORG ordered that criminal proceedings against the applicants be instituted under ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW on the basis of the results of the “ operative measures ” taken in the house of the PERSON family at CARDINAL [ rather than CARDINAL ] FAC in the town of ORG on DATE .

CARDINAL reports issued by an investigator of the district prosecutor 's office in DATE [ the date of issue is illegible ] stated that the applicants had been apprehended on DATE pursuant to LAW . The reports indicated that clear traces of a criminal offence had been found in the applicants ' house , constituting a ground for their apprehension , and stated that it had been necessary to prevent them from absconding or obstructing the establishment of the truth . The reports also indicated that the applicants were suspected of having been involved in kidnappings and of participation in illegal armed groups in DATE , that they had been informed of their rights as suspects and that the prosecutor of ORG had been notified of the applicants ' apprehension on DATE . The reports were signed by the investigator and the applicants .

By CARDINAL decisions of DATE the investigator of the district prosecutor 's office ordered that a measure of restraint in the form of custody be taken against the applicants . The orders referred to the objects seized in the house of the PERSON family on DATE and stated that the applicants were suspected of involvement in kidnappings of NORP servicemen in DATE and that in view of the gravity of the charges and the danger of the applicants ' obstructing the establishment of the truth if at large , the applicants should be detained on remand . The orders also stated that the applicants had been informed about their right to challenge this measure of restraint in a court . They were signed by the investigator and applicants and countersigned by the district prosecutor and sent for execution to the head of GPE .

CARDINAL decisions of DATE issued by the investigator of the district prosecutor 's office ordered that the applicants be formally charged with the kidnappings of NORP servicemen for ransom , and participation in illegal armed groups , in DATE . The decisions stated that the applicants had been notified of the charges against them and that the substance of the charges as well as the procedural rights of the accused had been explained to them . The decisions were signed by the investigator and the applicants , but the signature of the applicants ' defence counsel was missing .

A decision of the district prosecutor 's office dated DATE ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicants be discontinued . This document outlined in detail the main procedural steps taken in the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicants . It stated , inter alia , that the applicants had been apprehended on DATE , that on DATE their remand in custody had been authorised , that on DATE they had been charged with criminal offences under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and that on DATE the period of the applicants ' detention on remand had been extended for DATE and DATE until DATE .

A decision of the NORP prosecutor 's office dated DATE set aside the decision of DATE and ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicants be resumed and an additional investigation be carried out .

The Government produced a number of certificates ( справка ) issued by the head of the Chernokozovo SIZO on DATE .

The certificates stated that upon the applicants ' arrival at the PERSON no injuries had been found on them . The first applicant had been diagnosed with a craniocerebral injury and , while in detention , he had sought medical assistance on CARDINAL occasions in this connection and had been prescribed certain medication , whilst the second applicant had applied for medical assistance on CARDINAL occasions in connection with influenza and chronic gastritis and had also been prescribed medical treatment .

Another document listed the cells in which the applicants had been detained . The document stated that the first applicant had been kept in cells FAC . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY ) , CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) , CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) , CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) and QUANTITY ) and the second applicant had been detained in cells FAC . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY ) , CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( QUANTITY each ) . The document continued that the sanitary conditions in the cells had been in conformity with the relevant requirements , that all cells had been equipped with running water and toilets . The document also stated that the applicants had always been provided with individual sleeping berths and that the number of persons detained together with the applicants had been in accordance with the relevant regulations .

The remaining certificates stated that no physical force or special devices had been used against the applicants DATE and DATE , that the applicants had not sent any letters or complaints during the said period , that the administration of GPE had provided them with relevant legal information and advice , including access to legal documents , and that on DATE they had been attended by their lawyer , Mr PERSON .

A number of letters from various higher courts in GPE stated that during the period DATE no criminal proceedings against the applicants had been pending in the courts of the respective regions of GPE and that the applicants had not complained about unlawful detention or about the actions of the personnel of ORG or GPE .

In a handwritten explanation , given at the prosecutor 's office of ORG on DATE , the second applicant stated that he and the first applicant had been detained and taken into custody in the context of criminal proceedings against them instituted on suspicion of their involvement in kidnappings and participation in illegal armed groups and then released on an undertaking not to leave a specified place of residence and that the criminal proceedings against them had subsequently been discontinued . The second applicant also stated that there had been grounds for their detention , as military overcoats had , indeed , been found in their house , and that there had been no procedural or any other violations of their rights during the detention . He further stated that he had not signed any untrue statements and had no complaints to make against the officers of ORG or PERSON or investigators of the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE an investigator of the prosecutor 's office of ORG , based on the results of the investigation in connection with a complaint lodged by the PERSON on the applicants ' behalf , decided to dispense with criminal proceedings . The decision stated that on DATE the prosecutor 's office of ORG had opened criminal case no . DATE against the applicants on suspicion of their having committed criminal offences under LAW ) and CARDINAL of LAW . It further stated that :

“ The criminal proceedings were instituted as a result of the discovery , during the planned operative measures on DATE , of CARDINAL military overcoats of servicemen of the NORP armed forces ... , a personal military card of serviceman PERSON , documents and tape records with information on [ the applicants ' ] involvement in kidnappings of servicemen and participation in illegal armed groups .

On DATE a police officer of ORG , PERSON , carried out an inspection of the scene of the incident ... which was reflected in a report . The inspection was carried out in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses , the owner of the house and CARDINAL officers of the PERSON . ”

The decision further indicated that the applicants had been apprehended pursuant to LAW on DATE , that on DATE their detention on remand had been authorised and that on DATE they had been formally charged with the aforementioned offences and notified of their procedural rights . The decision pointed out that the applicants had waived their right to legal assistance , but they had nevertheless been provided with a lawyer , PERSON PERSON . The decision went on to say that on DATE the applicants had been released subject to a written undertaking not to leave a specified place and that on DATE [ rather than DATE the criminal proceedings against them had been discontinued for lack of evidence of their involvement in the imputed offences . It further stated :

“ During the preliminary investigation into the said case no searches were carried out .

There were no procedural violations during the preliminary investigation , which is confirmed by the materials of case no . DATE .

[ The applicants ] did not sign any confessions ... , this fact being confirmed by the absence of any such documents in the file of case no . DATE and [ the second applicant 's ] explanations .

There were no procedural or any other violations in respect of [ the applicants ] during the investigation or their detention in ORG or PERSON , which is confirmed by the materials of case no . CARDINAL and [ the second applicant 's ] explanations .

In the light of the above , no evidence of any of the offences prohibited by LAW can be established in the actions of the investigators of the district prosecutor 's office who had been in charge of the investigation in criminal case no . DATE , or in those of the officers of ORG or PERSON . ”

The decision thus concluded that the PERSON 's request concerning the institution of criminal proceedings upon the applicants ' complaints should be rejected and ordered that the persons concerned be informed of that decision and notified of their right to challenge it before the prosecutor 's office of ORG or in a court . The decision made no comments as regards the PERSON 's reference to medical documents certifying the applicants ' injuries .

On CARDINAL DATE a prosecutor at the prosecutor 's office of GPE drew up a report “ on the results of the internal inquiry into the actions of the officials of the prosecutor 's office of ORG during the examination of the applicants ' complaint about inhuman treatment in ORG and GPE DATE and DATE ” . The report stated that the internal inquiry had been carried out in connection with the complaint by the ORG lodged on the applicants ' behalf against the decision of the district prosecutor 's office dated DATE to dispense with criminal proceedings as regards the applicants ' allegations that they had been ill - treated while in detention . The report stated that the internal inquiry had established the following :

“ In DATE [ the second applicant ] and his father were invited to the prosecutor 's office of FAC in connection with information about the use of illicit methods of investigation in respect of [ the applicants ] . [ The second applicant ] personally did not complain that any pressure had been put on him to extract any statements . Therefore he voluntarily gave explanations to investigator PERSON . to the effect that no illicit methods of investigation had been applied to him and that he had no claims against law - enforcement bodies .

Neither the investigator nor the prosecutor put any pressure on him to extract this explanation . No threats were made in his respect .... Moreover , he talked to prosecutor A .- K. after he had given his explanations to investigator PERSON .

His father refused to give any explanations . Presently he is undergoing medical treatment outside the territory of the republic . He refused to give any explanations , as he is fed up with all this .

[ The second applicant ] does not know whether [ the first applicant ] has applied to any human rights organisations . At present [ the first applicant ] lives in GPE and [ the second applicant ] has no contact with him .

Apparently , it was his younger brother ... who had met a representative [ of the SRJI ] in GPE and provided the information in question . Thereafter he spoke to [ his younger ] brother and forbad him further from applying to human rights organisations with unverified information .

The investigator of the prosecutor 's office of ORG , PERSON . , who was questioned during the internal inquiry , stated that in DATE he had carried out an investigation into the allegations by the [ representative of the PERSON ] to the effect that the illicit methods of investigation had been applied to [ the applicants ] during their detention in ORG and PERSON . During that investigation he had questioned [ the second applicant ] without putting any psychological or physical pressure on him . ... He had not forced [ the second applicant ] to make any statements , but merely questioned him , and thereafter the latter had read his explanations and signed them . [ The applicants ' father ] had appeared at the prosecutor 's office , along with [ the second applicant ] , given oral explanations and then left the prosecutor 's office and had not replied to further summonses . That investigation had resulted in the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against police officers who had allegedly applied illicit methods of investigation to [ the applicants ] during the latter 's detention [ in the absence of evidence of a crime in their actions ] .

The prosecutor of ORG , ORG , who was questioned during the internal inquiry , had stated that the district prosecutor 's office had investigated the allegations about illicit methods of investigation being used [ against the applicants ] in DATE , with the result that investigator PERSON . had decided to dispense with criminal proceedings [ in the absence of evidence of a crime ] . Officials of the prosecutor 's office had not put any pressure on [ the second applicant ] or his father . [ The second applicant ] had requested a meeting with the prosecutor after he had given explanations to the investigator . [ The second applicant ] , at the request of a supervising official from the NORP prosecutor 's office , had confirmed the defamatory nature of the allegations represented in the letter of [ the PERSON ] . The NORP prosecutor 's office approved the decision taken by the district prosecutor 's office . ”

The report thus concluded that investigator PERSON . 's decision of DATE to dispense with criminal proceedings in connection with the allegations of ill - treatment of the applicants during their detention DATE and DATE in ORG and PERSON was lawful and well - founded , that the PERSON 's allegations concerning the pressure on the second applicant and his father during the investigation in connection with the PERSON 's complaint were groundless and that the PERSON 's request to have the decision of DATE set aside should be dismissed .

The Chernokozovo SIZO , where the applicants had been detained , received extensive attention from various human rights institutions , including ORG for the Prevention of Torture ( “ the ORG ” ) , for allegations of severe ill - treatment of detainees . On DATE the Head of the ORG delegation , Mr GPE , issued a statement to the NORP officials at the end of the ORG visit to the LOC region of GPE . The statement said , inter alia , in relation to the visit to PERSON :

The delegation is satisfied that , at present , persons detained in this establishment are not being physically ill - treated . Further , although conditions of detention in the GPE leave much to be desired , the delegation has noted that genuine efforts have been made in recent times - and continue to be made - to improve those conditions .

However , the information gathered by the delegation strongly indicates that many persons detained at GPE were physically ill - treated in the establishment during DATE to DATE . In different locations , the delegation has interviewed individually and in private a considerable number of persons who were held at GPE during that period . A clear pattern of physical ill - treatment of prisoners by custodial staff emerged . The ill - treatment alleged consisted essentially of kicks , punches and truncheon blows to various parts of the body ( excluding the face ) . The ill - treatment was said to have been inflicted principally in the central corridor of the detention facility , usually when prisoners were taken to an investigator 's room for questioning or when they were returned to their cells after such questioning ; apparently , prisoners were also on occasion physically ill - treated in the investigators ' rooms . Investigators were said to have been fully aware of the ill treatment being inflicted , and some prisoners affirmed that it was inflicted at their instigation . In certain cases , the delegation has gathered medical evidence which is consistent with the allegations of ill - treatment made by the prisoners concerned .

It is also noteworthy that practically all the prisoners interviewed who had been held at the establishment in GPE during DATE stressed that there had been a distinct change for the better in DATE , at the same time as a changeover of staff began to occur . The beatings stopped ; further , other improvements had been made , in particular as regards food . Moreover , no allegations of physical ill - treatment were made by prisoners interviewed who had arrived in the establishment after DATE .

On DATE the ORG issued a public statement concerning GPE , under LAW of LAW or Punishment . This step was prompted by the NORP authorities ' failure to cooperate with the ORG in relation to CARDINAL issues : ( i ) the carrying out of a thorough and independent inquiry into the events in a detention facility at GPE during DATE to DATE ; ( ii ) action taken to uncover and prosecute cases of ill - treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in GPE in the course of the current conflict . The statement read , in particular , as follows :

... the information gathered by the ORG 's delegation in the course of its DATE and DATE visits indicated that a considerable number of persons deprived of their liberty in GPE since the outset of the conflict had been physically ill - treated by members of the NORP armed forces or law enforcement agencies . In the report on those CARDINAL visits , the ORG recommended that the NORP authorities redouble their efforts to uncover and prosecute all cases of ill - treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in GPE in the course of the conflict . The ORG made a number of remarks of a practical nature intended to clarify the precise form those efforts might take . More generally , the ORG stressed that it was essential for the NORP authorities to adopt a proactive approach in this area .

The response of the NORP authorities to this key recommendation was very unsatisfactory ...

As was stressed in a letter sent to the NORP authorities on DATE , the ORG 's concerns in this regard are all the greater given that in the course of the ORG 's most recent visit to GPE , in DATE , numerous credible and consistent allegations were once again received of severe ill - treatment by Federal forces ; in a number of cases , those allegations were supported by medical evidence . The ORG 's delegation found a palpable climate of fear ; many people who had been ill - treated and others who knew about such offences were reluctant to file complaints to the authorities . There was the fear of reprisals at local level and a general sentiment that , in any event , justice would not be done . It was emphasised to the NORP authorities that they must spare no effort to overcome this deeply disturbing state of affairs .

On DATE the ORG issued a second public statement in relation to GPE . It was prompted by allegations of continued recourse to torture and other forms of ill - treatment by members of the law - enforcement agencies and federal forces operating in GPE . It also referred to the action taken to bring to justice those responsible as slow and ultimately ineffective . In particular , the report stated :

In the course of the ORG 's visits to GPE in DATE and , most recently , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , a considerable number of persons interviewed independently at different places alleged that they had been severely ill - treated whilst detained by law enforcement agencies . The allegations were detailed and consistent , and concerned methods such as very severe beating , the infliction of electric shocks , and asphyxiation using a plastic bag or gas mask . In many cases , these allegations were supported by medical evidence . Some persons examined by the delegation 's doctors displayed physical marks or conditions which were fully consistent with their allegations . Documentation containing medical evidence consistent with allegations of ill - treatment during periods of detention in law enforcement agencies was also gathered .

Article CARDINAL provided that criminal proceedings could be instituted on the basis of letters and complaints from citizens , public or private bodies , articles in the press or discovery by an investigating body , prosecutor or court , of evidence that a crime had been committed .

Article CARDINAL provided that the investigating body had to take one of the following decisions within a maximum period of DATE after being notified of a crime : to open or refuse to open a criminal investigation , or transmit the information to an appropriate body . The informers were to be informed about any decision .

Under LAW , if the investigating body refused to open a criminal investigation , a reasoned decision had to be given . The informer was to be notified of the decision and was entitled to appeal against it to a superior prosecutor or to a court .

DATE ( CARDINAL ) guaranteed the principle of personal inviolability and established that no one could be arrested other than on the basis of a judicial decision or a prosecutor 's order .

Under LAW , an investigating authority could apprehend a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment on one of the following grounds :

if the person was caught in the act or immediately after committing the offence ;

if eye - witnesses , including victims , directly implicated the person as the one who had committed the offence ;

if clear traces of the offence were found on the person 's body or clothes , or with him or in his dwelling .

An investigating authority was required to draw up a report on any apprehension of a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence , indicating the grounds , motives , day and time , DATE and DATE of the apprehension , the explanations of the apprehended person and the time the report was drawn up , and to notify a prosecutor in writing within TIME . Within TIME after being notified of the apprehension , the prosecutor had either to remand the apprehended person in custody or to release that person .

ORG . Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) authorised imposition of preventive measures where there were sufficient grounds to believe that an accused could abscond from enquiries , preliminary investigation or trial , or obstruct the establishment of the truth in a criminal case or engage in criminal activity , as well as in order to secure the execution of a sentence . The investigator , prosecutor or the court could impose CARDINAL of the following preventive measures on the accused : a written undertaking not to leave a specified place , a personal guarantee or a guarantee by a public organisation , or remand in custody .

Article CARDINAL permitted , on an exceptional basis , a measure of restraint to be taken against a suspect who had not been charged . In such a case , charges had to be brought against the suspect within DATE after the imposition of the measure . If no charges were brought within the period specified , the measure of restraint was to be revoked .

Article CARDINAL required the following circumstances to be taken into account in imposing a measure of restraint : the gravity of the charges and the suspect 's or defendant 's personality , occupation , age , health , family status and other circumstances .

Article CARDINAL authorised an investigator , prosecutor , or a court to issue a ruling or finding as to a measure of restraint , provided it specified the offence of which the person was suspected or accused and the grounds for imposing such a measure . The person concerned had to be informed of the ruling or finding and at the same time provided with explanations concerning the appeal procedure . A copy of the ruling or finding had to be served immediately on the person against whom a measure of restraint had been taken .

Article CARDINAL set out the grounds for arrest , and authorised public prosecutors , from the level of a district or town prosecutor to ORG , to authorise detention on remand .

Article CARDINAL provided that detention on remand during the investigation of criminal cases could not exceed DATE . That term could be extended by a prosecutor for DATE , and further detention could be authorised by a regional prosecutor ( or a prosecutor of equal rank ) up to a maximum of DATE . Extension of detention beyond DATE was allowed in exceptional cases only with regard to persons charged with serious criminal offences , and could be authorised by a deputy Prosecutor General for a period of DATE , and by ORG for a period of up to one and a half years . Further extension of detention was not allowed and the person then had to be released immediately .

An appeal against an order extending periods of detention could be lodged with a court in the area of a detention centre in which a detainee was held ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL established that if criminal proceedings were discontinued on account of the absence of a crime , of evidence of a crime in the relevant actions , or of evidence of a person 's involvement in the imputed offence , competent public officials were under an obligation to take measures to compensate that person for the damage caused by , inter alia , his or her unlawful detention .

Article CARDINAL prescribed that all investigative measures , including inspection , search and seizure , should be documented by a formal record .

LAW regulated questions relating to searches , seizures and attachment of property . LAW provided that a search had to be conducted on the basis of an investigator 's reasoned decision and subject to the authorisation of a prosecutor . A search could be conducted without a prosecutor 's authorisation for a reason that admitted of no delay , but a prosecutor had to be notified of that search within TIME . Article CARDINAL restricted seizures to items and documents that could be relevant to the criminal investigation .

Chapter CARDINAL related to on - site inspections . Article CARDINAL permitted an inspection of the scene of the incident prior to institution of the criminal investigation for a reason that admitted of no delay . In that case , the investigation then had to be opened immediately after the inspection . Article CARDINAL required that a record be made for the inspection . That record had to describe the investigator 's actions and all items seized during the inspection .

This law provides that any citizen has the right to file a complaint with a court when he or she considers that his or her rights have been infringed by unlawful actions or decisions of ORG agencies , bodies of local self - government as well as institutions , enterprises or their associations , non - governmental organisations or officials and ORG employees .

Complaints may be filed either directly with a court or a higher ORG agency which has the obligation to review the complaint within DATE . If the complaint is rejected by the latter or there has been no response on its part , the person concerned has the right to bring the matter before a court .