Preliminary objection dismissed (Six-month period);Violations of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

PERSON , the applicant 's husband , was a journalist . He disappeared on DATE in circumstances that have not yet been fully established by the NORP authorities despite the numerous demands and requests of the applicant . Recently , however , several police officers were charged with the kidnap and murder of Mr PERSON .

Mr PERSON was a political journalist and the editor - in - chief of ORG , an online newspaper . He was known for his criticism of those in power and for his active involvement in awareness - raising in GPE and abroad as regards the problems of freedom of speech in his country . He reported on such topics as the allegedly undemocratic initiatives of the NORP authorities and corruption amongst high - level ORG officials .

For DATE before his disappearance Mr PERSON had been telling his relatives and colleagues that he was receiving threats and was under surveillance .

On DATE Mr PERSON wrote an open letter to the Prosecutor General making the following complaints :

( i ) His relatives and friends in the city of GPE , and his colleagues in GPE , had been interviewed by law enforcement officers about him . The pretext for holding these interviews had been an inquiry into a criminal incident in GPE in which PERSON had allegedly been involved . ( The applicant maintained that PERSON had known nothing about the incident or the people involved in it . He himself had never been interviewed about it . )

( ii ) For some time , unknown persons in a car with the number plate CARDINAL PERSON had been following Mr PERSON from his home to his office and back .

In his open letter , PERSON requested ORG to take measures to protect him from what he described as “ moral terror ” , and to find and punish those involved .

NORP In response , ORG sent the letter to the regional prosecutor 's office in GPE , where PERSON was officially registered as a resident ( propiska ) . The PERSON prosecutor replied that the places and streets ( of GPE ) mentioned in Mr PERSON 's letter were unknown in GPE .

Later , the then Minister of the ORG told representatives of the non - governmental organisation “ Reporters sans frontières ” ( as recounted in the latter 's report of DATE ) that the car registration plate had been stolen from a police vehicle in DATE .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) informed PERSON that there were no grounds for the adoption of any decision under LAW ( protective measures during criminal proceedings ) regarding his letter .

Mr PERSON disappeared on DATE .

On DATE the applicant reported her husband 's disappearance to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ( DATE , according to ORG ) the ORG district prosecutor 's office initiated an inquiry into a case of premeditated murder ( the “ PERSON case ” ) . The inquiry included a search of the places where PERSON had last been seen and interviews with people who had been there at the time . The applicant maintained that the investigating prosecutor in charge of the case , PERSON , had seemed to be conducting a serious investigation . However , he was replaced at DATE by another prosecutor , PERSON

On DATE the decapitated body of an unknown person was discovered in the vicinity of the town of Tarashcha , in GPE .

On DATE the NORP regional prosecutor 's office initiated an inquiry into the murder of an unidentified person ( the “ Tarashcha case ” ) .

The first autopsy of the corpse was performed by a local expert and the findings were presented on DATE . According to these findings , the time of death of the unknown person roughly corresponded to the time of the disappearance of PERSON .

On DATE relatives learned from a brief article in the newspapers about the discovery of an unidentified body in the vicinity of GPE . On DATE , on examining the body , they identified jewellery belonging to Mr PERSON and the marks of an old injury to the body that corresponded to that of the missing journalist . The contents of the stomach corresponded to the food which Mr PERSON had eaten on DATE of his disappearance . The relatives took a fragment of skin from the body to be examined by independent experts .

From DATE , the prosecutor allegedly began actively to impede the investigation . On DATE the body was removed from the morgue in GPE . DATE the GPE regional prosecutor 's office admitted that the body had been transferred to GPE . All documents relating to the first forensic examination conducted in PERSON were confiscated . The local expert was prohibited from talking about the autopsy of the body and later became the subject of criminal proceedings . On DATE the Deputy Minister of the ORG announced that , contrary to the preliminary findings , the body which had been discovered had been buried in the ground for DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the investigator at the ORG district prosecutor 's office

( i ) to recognise her as a civil party to the proceedings in the PERSON case ;

( ii ) to identify the body and the jewellery found with it ; and

( iii ) to organise a forensic medical examination in order to establish whether the body found in PERSON was that of her husband .

On DATE the investigator rejected this request .

DATE the applicant also requested the prosecutor of GPE not to cremate the body found in PERSON and to let her bury it if the body were to be identified as that of her husband .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor 's office recognised the applicant as a civil party in the PERSON case .

On DATE the head of the investigation department of the GPE regional prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that a criminal investigation into the murder of the unidentified person had been initiated and that a forensic medical examination had been organised . However , there were no grounds to recognise the applicant as a civil party in the PERSON case . They promised to keep the applicant informed as to her possible participation in the identification of the objects found with the body . Accordingly , the applicant was not allowed to participate in the identification of the body at that stage .

On DATE the applicant asked the ORG to be allowed to participate in the identification of the body and requested that the CARDINAL sets of proceedings be joined .

On DATE ORG announced that DNA analysis could not be done for the time being because PERSON , the deceased 's mother , was ill . This statement was denied by the latter herself . ORG then declared that he had been misunderstood .

On DATE , DATE after the body had been discovered , the applicant was allowed to participate in its identification . Being under stress , she was unable to make a positive identification of the body as being that of her husband .

On DATE a blood sample was taken from the deceased 's mother for DNA analysis .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to involve foreign experts in the investigation of the case under LAW of DATE .

On DATE the Prosecutor General announced that the body found in PERSON was not that of PERSON .

On DATE the ORG refused the applicant 's request to involve foreign experts in the DNA analysis and informed her that the NORP institutions were empowered to conduct all necessary examinations .

Later , several DNA analyses were conducted in the case , including by foreign experts . The forensic medical examinations conducted by the NORP and GPE specialists confirmed that it was highly probable that the body found in PERSON was that of PERSON . However , within the framework of an investigation conducted by an ad hoc parliamentary committee , an examination conducted by NORP specialists did not confirm this finding .

The applicant maintained that she had never been informed directly by the investigating authorities about the results of these examinations , but had learned about them from the media .

On DATE the Prosecutor General informed ORG of the provisional findings of the forensic medical examination conducted by the NORP experts , which showed that the body found in PERSON was that of PERSON ( PERCENT probability ) . Nevertheless , the identity of the body could not be confirmed as there were witnesses who claimed to have seen Mr PERSON alive in PERSON after his disappearance , in DATE . This information had been checked but was also not confirmed .

On DATE the applicant and the deceased 's mother requested the ORG to recognise them as civil parties in the PERSON case and to conduct another examination of the body . The same day the applicant was informed by ORG that her status as a civil party , which had been granted by the ORG district prosecutor 's office on DATE , was annulled . The applicant lodged a complaint with the ORG of GPE .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant 's request to be recognised as a civil party , stating that it had not been established beyond all doubt that Mr PERSON was dead or that the body found in PERSON was his .

On DATE the ORG recognised the right of the applicant and the deceased 's mother to be civil parties and ordered the ORG to grant them this status . However , despite the order , the ORG again refused this status on DATE . Exceptionally , the ORG agreed to give them the Tarashcha body for burial , whilst emphasising that the ORG was not competent to issue a death certificate .

Also on DATE the editor - in - chief of the PERSON newspaper made public the names of CARDINAL policemen who had allegedly participated in the surveillance of PERSON .

The applicant and the deceased 's mother challenged the refusal to grant them aggrieved - party status in the Pechersky District Court . On DATE that court found that the ORG 's decision was illegal . The ORG appealed .

On DATE the investigators severed a defamation case involving a Mr PERSON from the PERSON case ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL-X ) .

Despite its appeal , on DATE the ORG recognised the status of the applicant and the deceased 's mother as civil parties in the light of further forensic evidence . ( The applicant maintained that this was done under the influence of Resolution CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG of ORG , adopted on DATE , which called on the authorities to conduct “ an expeditious , full and transparent investigation into the disappearance or death of PERSON , and to make known the results of the investigation as quickly as possible ; ... to respect the rights of the victim 's relatives , including their right to be the aggrieved side in the case of PERSON death ” . )

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that additional evidence had confirmed that the body found in PERSON was that of PERSON PERSON . An investigation into the murder of PERSON was initiated , and the applicant and the deceased 's mother were granted the status of aggrieved parties .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to give her access to the case - file material concerning the forensic medical examination of the body . On DATE the investigating officer refused , stating that it was part of the preliminary investigation and the applicant could only have such access when the preliminary investigation was over . The applicant 's lawyer unsuccessfully challenged this refusal in the ORG of GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the ORG of GPE alleging negligence by the investigators .

On DATE the investigator carried out an inspection of the Tarashcha body in the presence of the deceased 's mother and her lawyer , and the applicant 's lawyer . An additional forensic examination and a genetic identification test were carried out by GPE specialists . The joint examination by GPE and NORP experts confirmed that the PERSON body was that of PERSON .

DATE . On DATE the applicant requested full access to the case file , which was refused on CARDINAL DATE pending the pre - trial investigation .

On CARDINAL DATE the Minister of the ORG announced that the CARDINAL presumed murderers of PERSON , identified as drug users , had died and that the case was therefore solved . The Minister further stated that the murder had been spontaneous , with no political motive . On DATE the ORG contradicted this announcement and recommended that the Minister refrain from disclosing any information about the criminal investigation .

On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to confirm the Minister 's statement and to inform her as to when she would be allowed access to the case file . DATE the ORG informed the applicant that important additional information had been obtained and needed further examination , and that it would therefore be premature to say that the preliminary investigation was over .

On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to involve experts from ORG ( ORG ) in the investigation . Her request was refused on DATE .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG authorised ORG to deliver the remains of PERSON to his relatives for burial . A copy of this letter was handed to the representative of the deceased 's mother and sent by mail to the applicant 's representative . On DATE the forensic office informed the deceased 's mother that she could take the body away for burial . However , according to the ORG , the body was still in ORG , although the burial decision remained exclusively with the deceased 's mother and the applicant .

On DATE the applicant 's representative requested access to the results of all the forensic examinations in the case file . She also asked when the preliminary investigation would be finished . On DATE the ORG replied that it was not yet possible to say .

In a further reply of DATE , the ORG stated that the representative of an aggrieved party had a right of access to the results of forensic examinations , but only after the pre - trial investigation had been completed . According to the Government , the ORG noted that the representative had had access to the results of the forensic examinations and genetic tests within the limits permitted by the confidentiality of the investigation .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that her negligence claim against the investigators , lodged on DATE with the ORG of GPE , had not been registered and could not be found . ORG advised the applicant to lodge the complaint again with that court .

On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to provide her with information about the forensic medical examination conducted by the ORG and the reasons for the contradictory findings of the forensic medical examinations conducted by the NORP and NORP experts . She requested that an additional forensic medical examination be held to answer these questions .

On DATE the applicant was informed by the ORG that the case file could not be disclosed before the end of the preliminary investigation and that the preliminary investigation would be finalised when the person guilty of the crime had been found .

On DATE the ORG stated that the forensic medical examinations had established that the body found in PERSON was that of PERSON PERSON . It further informed the applicant that the results of the forensic medical examination conducted by the NORP experts could not be included in the case file , as the tissue samples for that examination had been taken by an unauthorised person in breach of established procedures .

On DATE ORG again informed the applicant that her negligence claim against the investigators , lodged with ORG of Kyiv , had not been registered and could not be found . ORG advised the applicant to lodge the complaint again with ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the ORG of GPE about the ORG 's refusal to allow her access to the case - file material concerning the forensic medical examination of the body .

On DATE the Pechersky District Court held that the applicant 's complaint against the ORG could not be considered prior to the transfer of the case to the court . It decided to attach the complaint to the case file for consideration at DATE . The court stated that LAW did not provide for a separate appeal against the investigators on the ground of their refusal of access to the case - file material relating to the forensic medical examination .

On DATE ORG in GPE refused to issue a death certificate for PERSON in the absence of any document confirming his death .

On DATE the applicant requested Mr PERSON , the Secretary - General of “ Reporters sans frontières ” , to be her representative in the case .

On DATE , while the power of attorney for this purpose was being prepared , ORG requested the ORG , on behalf of the deceased 's mother who was also a civil party to the case , to interview the CARDINAL police officers named in the press as having followed Mr PERSON . He further requested access to the case - file material concerning the forensic medical examinations , and asked for another examination by foreign experts . His request was not answered .

Another request by ORG on DATE was refused by the ORG on DATE on the ground that he could not be recognised as the representative of the civil party . On DATE Mr Ménard asked the ORG to annul that decision .

On DATE a new Prosecutor General was elected , who confirmed on DATE that there had been numerous irregularities in the previous investigation .

DATE . On DATE the Prosecutor General announced an investigation into the alleged falsification of procedural documents by the prosecutor and investigator from the town of Tarashcha .

On DATE “ Reporters sans frontières ” requested access to all the forensic results in the case file and their examination by an independent expert . They also requested information about the identity of the CARDINAL persons who had followed Mr PERSON before his disappearance .

NORP In DATE a new forensic examination took place in GPE . On DATE “ Reporters sans frontières ” announced that the last DNA test had unequivocally identified the body as that of Mr PERSON .

In DATE the prosecutor from the Tarashcha district prosecutor 's office was arrested and charged with negligence in the investigation of the case . On DATE the prosecutor was sentenced to DATE imprisonment but absolved from serving the sentence by ORG of Kyiv under an amnesty law .

On DATE the chairman of the parliamentary ad hoc committee on the PERSON case announced that the persons responsible for the death of PERSON were members of the police .

On DATE ORG requested the ORG to investigate the possible role of PERSON , who had been Minister of the ORG at the time of the disappearance of PERSON , in the death of the journalist . This request was supported by CARDINAL members of parliament .

On DATE the Prosecutor General , PERSON , declared that they were checking the information about the involvement of senior officials of ORG in the death of PERSON .

On DATE the Prosecutor General openly criticised his predecessor , Mr PERSON , for impeding the investigation into the murder of Mr PERSON .

DATE . In DATE a former police officer , PERSON , was arrested and charged with setting up a criminal group with the participation of the police . He died in prison on DATE in unclear circumstances . His lawyers maintained that he had been beaten and tortured . The body of PERSON was cremated on DATE without an autopsy .

On DATE the letters of the late Mr G. appeared in the media . In these letters he accused the police and senior officials of kidnapping and killing PERSON . These letters , and the documents attached to them , were sent to the ORG .

On DATE the ORG confirmed that the handwriting of the letters was that of the late PERSON

On DATE Lieutenant - General PERSON , an official of ORG , was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the disappearance of PERSON . He was accused of ordering the destruction of important documents in the case .

On DATE the Prosecutor General , PERSON , was dismissed by the President .

On DATE the ORG released Mr GPE on his undertaking not to abscond .

On DATE the applicant was allowed to have access to the criminal case file .

The applicant noted that , since DATE , CARDINAL journalists had been killed in GPE .

The applicant maintained that the political situation which had developed after the disappearance of her husband illustrated the attitude of the NORP authorities towards freedom of the press .

Soon after the disappearance of PERSON , the President of GPE had promised to employ every means to find him . After a motion voted by ORG , the President had assigned CARDINAL law enforcement agencies – the ORG , the police and the security services – to work on the case .

On DATE an anonymous person called the embassy of GPE in GPE with the information that the responsibility for the disappearance of the journalist lay with PERSON , the notorious leader of a criminal group , and with the Minister of the ORG and an MP , PERSON . The Ambassador of GPE , who made the contents of the call public , was recalled to GPE DATE . The NORP authorities denied any link between the CARDINAL events .

At DATE ORG created an ad hoc committee to investigate the disappearance of PERSON . The Prosecutor General refused to collaborate with the committee as its request to interview experts and officers was considered unconstitutional .

On DATE the Chairman of ORG , Mr Moroz , publicly announced the existence of audio tapes , secretly made in the office of the President , implicating President PERSON and other high - level ORG officials in the disappearance of PERSON . In CARDINAL of the recorded conversations , allegedly between the President and the Minister of the ORG , the President had asked for PERSON to be threatened . The Minister had then proposed certain people whom he called “ real eagles ” , capable of anything , to do the job .

The applicant maintained that , due to doubts as to the quality of the tapes , it was not possible to establish their authenticity , although a GPE laboratory ( BEK TEK ) confirmed that they were genuine . She referred to the report of DATE by “ Reporters sans frontières ” that testified to the existence of special forces in the police , and groups of retired police officers recruited by the mafia who would commit acts of violence against political figures or journalists .

After the disappearance of PERSON , many news media experienced pressure and censorship over their coverage of the case .

On DATE CARDINAL opposition supporters demonstrated in memory of PERSON .

NORP The case of the disappearance of PERSON attracted the attention of many international organisations . It was analysed in the context of the lack of freedom of the media in GPE , which had been criticised for DATE at international level .

On DATE ORG of ORG PACE ) adopted Resolution DATE ) expressing its concern about “ the intimidation , repeated aggression and murders of journalists in GPE and the frequent abuse of power by the competent NORP authorities in respect of freedom of expression ” . It further stated that the investigation into the disappearance of PERSON should be considered as a test for freedom of expression and the functioning of parliamentary democracy in GPE ” .

A plea for a speedy and transparent investigation into all cases of violence against and the death of journalists , particularly in the PERSON case , was repeated in PACE Recommendation CARDINAL ( DATE ) of DATE , Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) and Recommendation DATE ) of CARDINAL DATE and Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) of DATE .

Similar pleas were made by ORG in a statement on DATE , and by ORG of ORG in LOC ( OSCE ) in its resolution of DATE . ORG also awarded the DATE OSCE Prize for Journalism and Democracy to PERSON posthumously .

The case of the disappearance of Mr PERSON was reported in the documents of certain ORG bodies : ORG and ORG .

“ Reporters sans frontières ” conducted its own investigation into the disappearance of PERSON , the results of which were published in the special report of DATE mentioned above . It concluded that the investigating authorities had been mainly preoccupied with proving the innocence of high - level ORG officials .

On DATE the report of Mr PERSON , Deputy Secretary General of ORG , was presented to PACE . The documents attached to the report confirmed that , prior to the appointment of a new Prosecutor General on DATE , the investigation had been ineffective , although later developments had raised hopes of more efficacy . According to the applicant , the further developments in the investigation demonstrated that the hopes expressed had been premature .

On DATE ORG made a declaration in which concern was expressed at the lack of progress in the investigation .

The issue of the effectiveness of the investigation in the case was similarly raised by ORG and by ORG .

On DATE several international non - governmental organisations published a report about the progress of the investigation in the PERSON case . They maintained that the ORG , supported by the President , had tried to limit the investigation and had not made enough efforts to find and prosecute the instigators of the kidnap and murder of PERSON PERSON . They further criticised the NORP authorities for serious setbacks in the investigation , in particular :

“ – the disappearance of Lieutenant - General PERSON ; the leaking of information that disrupted the work of NORP and NORP agencies who were preparing to detain him ; the lack of any public scrutiny of that potentially criminal action ; and the absence of any investigation into the process by which Lieutenant - General PERSON was previously released and the GPE case closed in DATE ;

– the death of former Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON , who could have provided important information about the link between the conversations recorded by PERSON and the murder ; and the lack of any public scrutiny of the possible negligence of the ORG in its handling of the PERSON case and in protecting him as a witness ;

– the failure to interview numerous witnesses in the Ministry of the ORG with a knowledge of the system of surveillance operated there ; and the failure to investigate thoroughly the links between the ' werewolves ' and PERSON cases with the PERSON case ;

– the failure to resolve the problems surrounding the PERSON tapes , with a view to using them as primary evidence in court , caused mainly by the mistakes and sluggishness of the ORG ;

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor 's office of GPE instituted a criminal investigation , pursuant to LAW , into a case of premeditated murder . In order to determine the circumstances of the disappearance , an investigation group was formed . The group included officers of ORG and the ORG . The following CARDINAL lines of inquiry were pursued :

( i ) Did the disappearance involve family problems ?

( ii ) Was PERSON the victim of a criminal offence unrelated to his profession ?

( iii ) Was the disappearance connected to his critical publications in the GPE Pravda online newspaper ?

From DATE until DATE , a number of investigative measures were taken to identify witnesses , check Mr PERSON 's contacts , search localities , etc .

On DATE the unidentified corpse of a man was found in a forest in the Tarashcha district . The law enforcement authorities were informed about this and immediately went to the site . On DATE the investigation group examined the site and prepared the necessary procedural documents . The corpse was transferred to the morgue of the Tarashcha district for a forensic examination . The investigating officer of the Tarashcha district prosecutor 's office instituted a criminal investigation into the premeditated murder of an unidentified person , pursuant to LAW . The forensic expert found jewellery on the corpse that day and near the corpse in the soil nearby the following day .

The ORG district prosecutor 's office enquired whether the corpse could be that of Mr PERSON . For this purpose the applicant was summoned before the prosecutor and requested to describe the jewellery which Mr PERSON could have been wearing when he disappeared .

On DATE a group of journalists – close friends of Mr PERSON DATE went to PERSON , having learned about the unidentified body from a newspaper article . They met with the forensic expert , who informed them about the jewellery and showed them the corpse . Upon the journalists ' request , he took an X - ray of one of the arms of the corpse . PERSON showed pieces of metal in the arm that could have corresponded to an old wound of PERSON . On this ground the journalists concluded that the corpse was that of PERSON . DATE the PERSON prosecutor ordered and effected the transfer of the corpse to the GPE city morgue for further forensic examination .

On DATE the ORG joined the investigations in the PERSON and PERSON cases , and a case of defamation against senior ORG officials ( the PERSON case ) , in order to ensure their comprehensive and speedy examination .

On DATE the applicant was questioned as an aggrieved party . She agreed to provide samples of her own blood and of that of her children for forensic examination . The applicant insisted on participating in the identification of the Tarashcha body , and said that she was certain that she could recognise her husband 's jewellery .

On DATE the applicant refused to give blood samples because of a family conflict . DATE the applicant requested the ORG to conduct the forensic examinations in a western country . This request was rejected on DATE .

On DATE the investigator reported to the Deputy Prosecutor General that the deceased 's mother had refused to participate in the identification of the Tarashcha body , scheduled for DATE , as she did not feel well and wished to postpone her participation until the completion of the genetic identification tests .

On DATE the applicant was summoned to the ORG to participate in the identification of the PERSON body and the jewellery . She stated that there was a high probability that the corpse was that of her husband . She recognised the jewellery with absolute certainty . The same day the applicant requested to see the documents relating to the examination of the scene of the events and the body . Her request was allowed and a note made to that effect .

On DATE the ORG received a letter from the deceased 's mother , stating that she was under stress and could not come to GPE for the identification . She also stated that she would only participate in the identification once an independent forensic examination of the corpse had been conducted .

On DATE the applicant and the deceased 's mother requested the ORG to conduct an additional forensic examination with the assistance of GPE experts . They also requested that efforts be made to find the head of the PERSON body . The request for the forensic examination was allowed and , with the assistance of the ORG and ORG , an additional forensic examination and a genetic identification test were conducted on DATE . The head could not be found , however .

On DATE the ORG sent a request for legal assistance to the competent NORP authorities asking for the official results of a genetic identification test done in that ORG following a request from PERSON , a NORP MP . According to PERSON , the NORP experts had concluded that the PERSON body was not that of PERSON . However , according to the ORG , this test had no legal value , as neither the test nor the procedure for taking tissue samples had complied with NORP legislation .

On DATE the applicant 's representative applied to the ORG , stating that , according to the media , journalists had visited PERSON on DATE . The journalists had examined the body in the Tarashcha morgue and taken photographs of it . She asked the ORG to interview those journalists and to join the photographs to the criminal case file . On DATE the applicant 's representative was informed that the journalists had been identified and interviewed as witnesses in the course of the investigation . They had been requested to submit their photographs for inclusion in the case file .

On DATE the applicant 's representative requested the ORG to fix a time - limit for the completion of the pre - trial investigation into the murder of PERSON . The ORG replied that it could not do so until the murderer had been identified .

On DATE the applicant 's representative requested an additional forensic examination in order to determine , inter alia :

( i ) whether the X - ray of the corpse 's hand done in PERSON and given to the journalists corresponded to PERSON taken when PERSON was alive , and to those taken by the ORG on DATE ;

( ii ) whether the ORG analyses proved the presence of traces from bullets that corresponded to the wounds known to have been suffered earlier by the late journalist ; and

( iii ) whether the hair identification and DNA analysis confirmed the corpse 's identity .

On DATE the ORG refused to authorise an additional examination , as the PERSON body was undoubtedly that of PERSON and during their examinations the GPE and GPE experts had already answered the applicant 's questions .

On DATE the applicant 's representative requested access to the decision ordering a new forensic examination , allegedly to be carried out by NORP experts . She further requested to be allowed to put questions to these experts . She referred in her application to the alleged statements of investigators , disseminated by the media , about this new examination .

On DATE the ORG rejected the application . The applicant 's representative was informed that she could study the case file after the pre - trial investigation was completed and that no statement about a new examination by NORP experts had been made by ORG to the media .

On DATE the newly appointed Prosecutor General ordered the creation of a new investigation group in the PERSON case .

NORP On DATE and DATE the new group conducted CARDINAL additional examinations of the site where the body was found , together with forensic experts . They took soil samples , carried out a thorough search and took a number of objects for analysis .

On DATE an additional examination of the Tarashcha body was conducted and samples for further forensic tests were taken . The additional forensic examinations were to establish more accurately the approximate time of PERSON death .

On DATE the deceased 's mother was provided with the documents necessary for the burial of PERSON remains .

On DATE the ORG sent a letter to the Director of the ORG inviting them to assist NORP specialists in investigating the case .

In DATE and DATE Mr Ménard , Secretary - General of “ Reporters sans frontières ” , visited GPE twice as the representative of the deceased 's mother in the criminal case . He met ORG and had access to the results of the forensic examinations in the case . Moreover , samples were taken for an additional forensic examination , which was carried out in GPE ( GPE ) from DATE .

On DATE the ORG instituted proceedings against Lieutenant - General PERSON for abuse of power . His case was joined to that of Mr PERSON .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ordered the arrest and detention of Mr GPE . ORG and ORG were ordered to find him , without success .

During the investigation it was established that Mr PERSON had been the subject of illegal surveillance operations by certain officers of ORG , previously headed by PERSON , from DATE until DATE he disappeared in DATE . It was also established that , in DATE , all the material relating to this illegal surveillance had been destroyed .

On DATE the ORG instituted proceedings against police officers PERSON and NORP . , as well as Mr GPE , charging them with the premeditated murder of Mr PERSON . On DATE Mr PERSON and Mr Pr . were arrested .

On DATE the ORG remanded PERSON and PERSON . in custody .

On DATE PERSON and PERSON . were officially charged with premeditated murder . They confessed their involvement . On DATE Mr PERSON was dismissed from his position as head of unit in ORG of ORG .

On DATE it was also decided to charge Mr GPE , but he could not be found .

On DATE the investigation established that a fourth person , PERSON , had been involved in the disappearance and murder of Mr PERSON . PERSON was interrogated and admitted his role in the crime . On DATE PERSON was dismissed from his position as a senior officer of ORG of ORG .

All CARDINAL accused participated in an on - site reconstruction of the events of the crime . Other police officers who had followed Mr PERSON before his disappearance were questioned .

Some objects belonging to the journalist were found and presented to his relatives for identification .

The investigation pursued further forensic examinations of the corpse and the audio tapes of Mr PERSON and a number of other matters .

On DATE the ORG received a video tape with statements by PERSON made in the presence of several NORP MPs . These statements concerned the involvement of the President of GPE and many other high - ranking officials in giving illegal orders . Mr PERSON claimed to have made audio recordings of incriminating conversations , using a digital recorder placed under the sofa in the office of the President of GPE .

On DATE Mr Moroz , a NORP MP , lodged an application with the ORG , enclosing a copy of a complaint by PERSON PERSON dated DATE and video - recorded statements containing accusations about the involvement of senior ORG officials in the disappearance of PERSON . A forensic examination of the audio tapes was ordered but could not determine their authenticity . ( The applicant contended that a GPE laboratory had confirmed the authenticity of the tapes . )

On DATE the ORG requested ORG to establish the whereabouts of PERSON .

On DATE the ORG requested the assistance of ORG in interviewing PERSON as a witness in the PERSON case .

Mr PERSON refused to provide the ORG with his tapes and recording equipment , but agreed to provide written answers to the ORG 's questions , which he had not done by the time the Government submitted their observations to the ORG . The applicant stated that the reason for Mr PERSON 's implied lack of cooperation was his well - founded fear of prosecution by the NORP authorities .

After PERSON was elected President of GPE on DATE , he pledged to reopen the investigation into the PERSON case . It was reported in the press on DATE that ORG had announced the arrest of CARDINAL security officers in connection with the present case : a general and CARDINAL colonels . On DATE the death by purported suicide of PERSON , the above - mentioned Minister of the Interior at the time , was announced . He had been due to be interviewed by the ORG that TIME .

Recently , the ORG announced that the criminal investigation was complete and would be sent to the ORG . The aggrieved parties were given access to the case file . They stated that the latest forensic examination in DATE by NORP experts had confirmed that the PERSON body was that of PERSON .

On DATE Mr PERSON , who had been dismissed from his post as head of the security service , informed journalists that the Service had been preparing for the arrest and extradition of Lieutenant - General PERSON from GPE , but the operation had failed due to a leak of information from the ORG . He stated that the interim results of the laboratory examination of the PERSON tapes had not established any sign of tampering , and had identified persons whose voices were recorded on the tapes .

On DATE the parliament of GPE heard the report of the chairman of its ad hoc committee investigating the murder of PERSON PERSON . This report concluded that the kidnap and murder of PERSON PERSON had been organised by former President PERSON and the late Minister of the Interior , Mr PERSON . The report found that the then head of the presidential administration and the current speaker of parliament , Mr PERSON , and the then head of the security service and a current member of parliament , PERSON , had been involved in the crimes . The report noted finally that , having been informed about the crimes and the names of suspects , the ORG had failed to take any action or to react to the conclusions of the ad hoc committee .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW provide :

“ The human being , his or her life and health , honour and dignity , inviolability and security are recognised in GPE as having the highest social value . ... ”

“ Every person has the inalienable right to life .

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life . The duty of the ORG is to protect human life . ... ”

“ Everyone has the right to respect for his or her dignity .

No one shall be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that violates his or her dignity . ... ”

The relevant provisions of LAW provide :

“ Anyone who has suffered material damage as a result of a crime shall be entitled to lodge an application to join the criminal proceedings as a civil party claiming damages ... , which shall be considered by the court at the same time as the criminal case ... ”

“ Anyone who has suffered ... damage as a result of a crime may be recognised as an aggrieved party . ...

A citizen who has been recognised as an aggrieved party in respect of the crime shall be entitled to give evidence in the case . An aggrieved party , or his or her representative , shall be entitled to ... make requests ; study all the materials of the case file when the pre - trial investigation is completed ; ... [ and ] lodge complaints against the actions of the inquirer , investigator , prosecutor and court ...

In cases where the crime has caused the death of the victim , the rights provided for in this Article shall be conferred upon the deceased 's next of kin . ”

“ A criminal action shall be instituted on the following grounds :

( CARDINAL ) applications or communications from ... individuals ;

( CARDINAL ) direct detection of signs of a crime by a body of inquiry or investigation , a prosecutor or a court .

An action may be instituted only when there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW , in the DATE version , provided :

“ The main functions of ORG are :

NORP supervision of compliance with the law by the bodies that combat crimes and other offences and investigate circumstances indicating that a crime has been committed ;

investigation of circumstances indicating that a crime has been committed ;


The applicant , PERSON , is a citizen of the GPE born in DATE . A lawyer and banker by profession , he resides in GPE in GPE .

After marrying in DATE the applicant and his then wife moved to GPE where they took up residence with their CARDINAL children , born in DATE and DATE respectively . In DATE they moved to GPE , although from DATE the applicant resided in GPE and GPE . He then returned to GPE where he obtained DATE residence permits ( GPE ) .

Meanwhile , having been separated from his wife since DATE , their marriage was dissolved in DATE .

Subsequently , the applicant was frequently unemployed and intermittently depended on social assistance .

In DATE , and again in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , ORG ) of the GPE of GPE refused the applicant ’s request for a long - term residence authorisation ( Niederlassungsbewilligung ) in view of his continuing tax and alimony debts and his dependence on public welfare . In DATE the applicant was in fact warned by ORG ( NORP ) of GPE that he would be expelled from GPE if he failed to comply with his alimony payments and if he continued to be a burden on the social assistance fund .

In DATE the applicant ’s residence permit was renewed until DATE . In DATE the Aliens’ Police requested the applicant to regularise his status in GPE . The applicant ’s further request for a domicile authorisation was refused by ORG on DATE , which , furthermore , ordered him to leave the GPE of GPE by DATE . In its decision , ORG noted , inter alia , that the applicant was unemployed and had not tried to find employment ; he had debts amounting to MONEY ( CHF ) , and the social assistance had paid out MONEY CARDINAL to him .

The applicant ’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Government of the GPE of GPE on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) rejected the applicant ’s administrative law appeal ( PERSON ) . In its judgment , the court found that the applicant could not rely on LAW as he was no longer married and his children were adults . Moreover , the applicant could not claim to have any particular ties with GPE in view of his unemployment , his debts , and his dependency on social assistance . Warnings had also not been heeded .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to leave GPE by DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed with ORG a public law appeal ( staatsrechtliche ORG ) against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . When informed by ORG that he had missed the time - limit for appealing , the applicant insisted on pursuing his appeal , pointing out that the decision of DATE had not contained a statement as to possible remedies available to him . On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s public law appeal inadmissible .

On DATE the applicant was brought by the police to GPE airport where he boarded a plane to GPE .

On DATE ORG ( Bezirksgericht ) fined the applicant CHF CARDINAL for failing to comply with the order to leave GPE by DATE .

On DATE the applicant married a NORP citizen and on DATE moved to GPE . It appears that he subsequently obtained an DATE residence permit .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr E. Petruska , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by PERSON L. ORG , ORG and Law Enforcement .

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

After having searched his home DATE with no result – on DATE and heard CARDINAL witnesses on DATE , ORG interrogated the applicant on DATE . He was suspected of bodily assault , allegedly having stabbed PERSON on DATE . On DATE the applicant retained Mr ORG as defence counsel . The latter ’s request of DATE for access to the investigation documents which had been created prior to his appointment was rejected by the police and , finally , by the public prosecutor ’s office on DATE . The lawyer eventually had access to the entirety of the case file on termination of the investigation .

On DATE the GPE XX / XXI District Public Prosecutor ’s Office indicted the applicant for severe bodily assault , noting that the victim had had a QUANTITY wide , QUANTITY deep knife wound .

The Budapest XX / XXI / XXIII ORG held a hearing on DATE . At that hearing the victim described the weapon used as a knife with a blade CARDINAL in width .

In another case , on DATE ORG indicted the applicant for the offence of causing unlawful damage . This case was joined to the first proceedings on DATE .

Meanwhile , in the principal proceedings a forensic opinion was obtained on DATE . Hearings took place on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

In yet another case , on DATE ORG indicted the applicant for the offence of riotous behaviour . This case was joined to the existing proceedings on DATE . On DATE , a hearing took place in the joined proceedings . Further hearings were held on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE another forensic opinion was obtained . Additional hearings took place on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

At the hearing of DATE , the prosecution and the defence made their final submissions . Defence counsel argued inter alia that the weapon as described by the victim could not possibly have caused the injury suffered . On that date the court found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a cumulative sentence of DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE . The court observed that the forensic opinion corroborated the victim ’s account of the incident and the weapon used , although the latter was nowhere to be found . Regarding the severe bodily assault committed by the applicant , which was punishable with imprisonment of DATE , the court took into account as a mitigating factor the substantial lapse of time since the offence had been committed .

On appeal , on DATE ORG disjoined the case concerning the assault and , quashing the first - instance judgment in this respect , remitted the case . It acquitted the applicant of the charge of causing unlawful damage and reduced his sentence for riotous behaviour to a fine .

For reasons of competence , on DATE another bench of ORG was appointed to retry the applicant for assault . In the resumed proceedings , hearings took place on DATE and DATE . On DATE , the defence had its only opportunity ever to question the prosecution ’s main witness in the case . Further hearings were held on DATE and DATE . On that date ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated bodily assault and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE . The court relied on the testimonies of the victim and several witnesses , the opinion of a forensic expert and the inspection of the crime scene . The court observed the substantial lapse of time since the offence had been committed and took it into account as a mitigating factor .

On appeal , on DATE ORG held a hearing . According to TIME of the hearing , the applicant ’s lawyer argued inter alia that :

“ the applicant ’s [ procedural ] rights had been seriously prejudiced [ in the proceedings before ORG ] ” .

In his submissions to the ORG , the applicant explains that this statement of his lawyer , as presented orally to ORG , concerned the alleged deficiency of ORG reasoning .

In its CARDINAL decision served on DATE , ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . Completing the findings of fact on certain points , it held that the reasoning of ORG judgment was , as such , sufficient and the establishment of the facts correct . It explained that , contrary to the defence ’s arguments , no breach of the prohibition of reformatio in peius had taken place . Finally , it observed that the sentence imposed by the first - instance court was lawful .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ( Old ) Code of Criminal Procedure , as in force in the material period , provides that the defendant shall have access to the case file on termination of the investigation .