Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (six month period;non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Tajikistan);Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lived before his arrest in the town of GPE , GPE . He is currently residing in GPE .

In DATE the applicant lost his job at a telephone exchange in Khudzhand and started earning his living by printing various texts for people on his computer , including theses and extracts from the Koran .

NORP In DATE several persons were arrested in Khudzhand on suspicion of membership of ORG ut - GPE ( “ ORG ” ) , a transnational NORP organisation , banned in GPE , GPE and NORP republics . Subsequently , the applicant learnt that some of the arrestees had testified before the prosecuting authorities that he was a member of ORG and had printed various materials for it from the Internet . The applicant denies being a member of ORG .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE ( “ the PERSON prosecutor 's office ” ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of membership of an extremist organisation ( LAW ( “ ORG ” ) ) . In particular , the applicant was suspected of having actively worked with ORG by printing out leaflets and religious literature for that organisation with a view to their dissemination . The case was assigned the number CARDINAL .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor 's office ordered the applicant 's placement in custody . Shortly thereafter the applicant was arrested and placed in the basement of ORG ( ORG ) . According to the applicant , he was held there for DATE . He was systematically beaten up and was tortured CARDINAL times with electricity . He was held in LOC with nothing to rest on , was refused access to the toilet for lengthy periods of time and received no food .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of LOC ( “ the ORG prosecutor 's office ” ) opened a further criminal case against the applicant in connection with his alleged activities within ORG . In particular , the applicant was suspected of : having secretly studied extremist literature provided by other members of ORG ; having worked for the organisation as an IT specialist ; having printed out the organisation 's leaflets and other literature and secretly distributed it among non - members of the organisation ; having paid membership fees to the organisation and trained another member to work with the PC . On DATE the applicant was charged with membership of a criminal organisation banned owing to its extremist activities ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , incitement to religious and other hatred ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) and public appeals to overthrow the constitutional order and to engage in extremist activities ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . The criminal case was joined with case no . DATE and given the number DATE .

According to the applicant , in DATE he and other detainees were taken to a construction site for a recreation zone for officers of the ORG , where they were ordered to dig , working in a bending position . When they tried to straighten up , the guards beat them severely .

On DATE , fearing further beatings , the applicant escaped .

According to the applicant , his relatives told him that after his escape law enforcement officials had tortured his co - accused to find out where he had gone and whether they had helped him to make good his escape .

On DATE the Bobodzhon - Gafurovskiy prosecutor 's office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for escaping from custody . The decision stated that on DATE , “ while in custody at a DATE cottage [ дачный участок ] belonging to the ORG ” , the applicant had fled to an unknown destination .

On an unspecified date the criminal case against the applicant in connection with his alleged activities within ORG was transferred for examination to the Bobodzhon - Gafurovskiy District Court of GPE

By a decision of DATE PERSON put the applicant 's name on a wanted list and suspended the examination of the criminal case against him pending his arrest .

On DATE the Bobodzhon - Gafurovskiy prosecutor 's office charged the applicant with escape from custody .

It appears that the applicant was hiding in NORP until DATE , when he moved to GPE . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant arrived in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE as a person wanted by the Tajikistani authorities .

On DATE the Nagatinskiy deputy prosecutor questioned the applicant about the circumstances of his arrival in GPE . According to the applicant 's written explanation [ объяснение ] of DATE , in DATE the ORG authorities had opened a criminal case against him on suspicion of membership of an extremist organisation . For DATE he had been held in custody . During that period he had been taken on a DATE basis to work at a construction site , from where he had escaped . In DATE the applicant had come to GPE to avoid criminal prosecution and to earn a living . He had not applied for NORP citizenship , refugee status or political asylum . The transcript bore the applicant 's signature . In the applicant 's submission , the explanation was compiled by the NORP authorities on the basis of material from his criminal case produced by the Tajikistani law enforcement authorities .

On DATE ORG ( “ the TPGO “ ) sent to ORG a request for the applicant 's extradition to NORP in connection with the charges concerning his membership of ORG . The letter stated that the applicant would be tried only on the charges for which his extradition was being sought , and that he would not be extradited to a third country without the consent of the NORP authorities .

On DATE the ORG sent their NORP counterpart an additional request for the applicant 's extradition on the charge of escaping from custody .

By a letter of DATE the applicant 's lawyer informed ORG that the applicant intended to challenge before the courts the refusal to grant him refugee status ( see below ) and requested them to take that fact into account when examining the extradition issue .

On DATE the deputy Prosecutor General of GPE ordered the applicant 's extradition to GPE . The decision , in its relevant parts , read as follows :

“ ... [ Mr ] ORG is charged with having actively participated in DATE in the activities of a criminal organisation “ NORP - ut - GPE PERSON ” , aimed at the violent seizure of state power and the overthrow of the constitutional order and banned on the territory of NORP by a court decision ...

The [ applicant 's ] actions are punishable under NORP criminal law and correspond to LAW of LAW ( membership of a criminal organisation ) ; LAW ( acts aimed at violent overthrowing of the constitutional order ) ; LAW ( public appeals in the media to engage in extremist activities ) ; LAW ) ( incitement to hatred and degrading treatment via the mass media , carried out by an organised group ) ; LAW ( membership of an extremist organisation ) ; LAW ( membership of an organisation banned by a court decision because of its extremist activities ) ; LAW ( financing terrorism ) . The above - mentioned offences carry penalties of over DATE imprisonment . The time - limits for [ the applicant 's ] prosecution under NORP and NORP legislation have not expired .

[ The applicant ] is charged with having absconded from custody ... on DATE ...

The [ applicant 's ] actions are punishable under LAW ( escape from custody of a person detained on remand ) and carry a penalty of over DATE imprisonment . The time - limits for [ the applicant 's ] criminal prosecution under NORP and NORP legislation have not expired . ”

Lastly , the decision stated that , according to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , the applicant had not obtained NORP citizenship , and concluded that there were no other grounds for not extraditing him to NORP .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of DATE , alleging that , if extradited , he would be subjected to torture in breach of LAW . He averred , in particular , that he had described in detail the treatment to which he had been subjected while in custody in NORP and that ORG had disregarded those submissions and the relevant materials from international NGOs showing that the Tajikistani law enforcement authorities systematically tortured detainees . The applicant also submitted that the Tajikistani authorities were not able to provide effective guarantees against the risk of ill - treatment and unfair criminal proceedings . Lastly , he stated that the decision to extradite him had been taken despite the fact that his asylum application was pending .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG guaranteed to their NORP counterpart that , if extradited , the applicant would not be persecuted on political , ethnic , linguistic , racial or religious grounds and that he would not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . The letter also noted that on DATE ORG had declared ORG a terrorist organisation and had banned its activities on the territory of NORP .

At a hearing on DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) examined the applicant 's complaint about the decision to extradite him to GPE .

According to the hearing transcript , the applicant submitted to the court that after his arrest in DATE in NORP he had been severely beaten and on CARDINAL occasions tortured with electricity with a view to extracting a confession that he was a member of ORG . He had been held in the ORG basement for DATE . During his detention there he had been systematically beaten and insulted and had been allowed access to the toilet only twice a day . While still in detention , he had been taken to a construction site for an ORG recreation zone . There he and other detainees had worked laying the foundation for a sports centre ; they had also been ordered to mow grass . The applicant and other detainees had been systematically subjected to beatings . Unable to stand the beatings and the lack of food , the applicant had escaped . The applicant further stressed that he feared returning to NORP because after his escape several ORG officials had threatened his family . They had allegedly told his family members that if the applicant was caught , they would not leave him alive . An ORG officer who had beaten the applicant and who had been on duty on DATE of his escape had allegedly told the applicant 's sister that if he went to jail because of the applicant , he would kill the applicant 's whole family , once released .

At the hearing the applicant 's lawyer also stated that his client 's detention was unlawful because the authorities had failed to extend it properly , in breach of LAW ( “ CCrP ” ) and the decisions of ORG .

Having heard the applicant and his lawyer and granted their request to include in the case file reports from various NGOs and international organisations on the situation in NORP in relation to torture , ORG adjourned the examination of the complaint pending the outcome of the asylum proceedings .

By a faxed letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed ORG ( “ the MID ” ) about the applicant 's case and his allegations of the risk of torture were he to be extradited to NORP . ORG asked DATE to present their position and to assist the court in obtaining information from ORG on the issues raised by the applicant .

By a letter of the same date ORG asked ORG to submit its position and any relevant information on the applicant 's allegations concerning the risk of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment should he be extradited to NORP , and to verify those allegations via the relevant ORG authorities .

On DATE the MID replied to ORG that GPE had become party to almost all the international instruments on the protection of human rights and that it had thereby confirmed its intention to build a democratic and secular state based on respect for the rule of law . A post of ombudsman had been created . The MID did not have any information to indicate that “ the applicant 's civil rights would be violated if he was extradited ” . It does not appear that ORG replied to ORG request .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant 's complaint about the decision of DATE . The applicant and his lawyer attended the hearing

According to the hearing transcript , the applicant reiterated before the court his submissions concerning his alleged torture while in custody in NORP . He submitted that the fact of his previous torture and the threats to his family members proved that he ran a risk of being subjected to such treatment again , should the extradition decision be upheld . The applicant 's lawyer asked the court to release the applicant , stressing that he had been detained for a long period of time and that his detention had not been extended despite clear instructions from ORG in that respect .

ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint . The decision , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ [ Mr ] ORG is charged with having , in the period from DATE in GPE , been an active member of the criminal organisation “ PERSON ut - GPE PERSON ” , founded with the aim of violent seizure of power and overthrowing the constitutional order , which [ organisation ] had been banned by a court from the territory of GPE because of its extremist activities ; [ the applicant ] is also charged with having financed the above organisation . During the relevant time period , being a member of that organised group and using the mass media , [ the applicant ] disseminated materials containing public appeals for the violent overthrow of the existing state regime to take control of the territory of GPE and seize power there . [ The applicant ] recruited citizens to the extremist organisation with a view to disrupting the constitutional order of GPE ; made public appeals to engage in extremist activities ; disseminated leaflets and other printed materials aimed at incitement to ethnic , racial , ... , religious hatred , degrading treatment , propaganda proclaiming the superiority of certain citizens based on their religious ... convictions , and the founding of an NORP state “ Caliphate ” on the territory of GPE .

The [ applicant 's ] actions are punishable under NORP criminal law and correspond to LAW [ of LAW ] ( participation in a criminal organisation ) ; LAW ( acts aimed at violent overthrow of the constitutional order ) ; LAW ( public appeals via the mass media to engage in extremist activities ) ; LAW ) ( incitement to hatred and degrading treatment committed by an organised group through the mass media ) ; LAW ( membership of an extremist organisation ) ; LAW ( membership of an organisation banned by a final court decision because of its extremist activities ) ; and LAW ( financing terrorism ) . The above - mentioned offences carry penalties of over DATE imprisonment . The time - limits for [ the applicant 's ] prosecution under NORP and Tajikistani law have not expired .

Moreover ... [ the applicant ] is charged with having absconded from custody ... on DATE ...

The above - mentioned actions of [ the applicant ] are punishable under LAW ( escape from custody of a person detained on remand ) and carry a penalty of over DATE imprisonment . The time - limits for [ the applicant 's ] criminal prosecution under NORP and Tajikistani law have not expired ...

The decision of ORG DATE is lawful and well - founded .

From the information submitted by the NORP ORG [ ORG ] and its GPE branch it follows that [ the applicant ] had not obtained NORP citizenship or applied for it in accordance with the law

At the court hearing [ the applicant ] explained that he had not applied for NORP citizenship ; he had been arrested in GPE as a person whose name had been put on an international wanted list ... ; [ he ] had not applied for refugee status before his arrest because he thought that he would not be granted it as a wanted person ; he was not a refugee , he had not been and was not being persecuted in the territory of GPE on political or any other grounds , except for his criminal prosecution ; he had left his place of residence voluntarily , having fled from custody – [ a fact ] which proves that [ the applicant ] was deliberately hiding in the territory of GPE from the Tajikistani law enforcement bodies .

Thus , there are no grounds stipulated in international agreements or the legislation of GPE to prevent [ the applicant 's ] extradition ...

The court has examined and dismissed [ the applicant 's ] arguments , supported by his lawyer ... with reference to the opinion [ заключение ] of CARDINAL DATE by specialist PERSON and materials confirming , in their opinion , that he should not be extradited to NORP on account of his possible persecution there . However , having applied to the ORG after his arrest pursuant to an international warrant , [ the applicant ] himself had explained that he feared extradition to NORP because of the possibility of his conviction leading to a long term of imprisonment .

Hence , the court considers that there is no well - founded fear of [ the applicant ] becoming a victim of persecution in NORP under LAW . Consequently , he does not satisfy the criteria to be granted refugee status because only a person who is not a NORP national and who , owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , religion , nationality , ethnic origin , membership of a particular social group or political opinion , is outside the country of his nationality and is unable to avail himself of the protection of that country as a result of such events , can be recognised as a refugee .

Furthermore , the receiving country furnished an assurance that [ the applicant ] would be prosecuted only for the crimes with which he had been charged . Moreover , GPE is party to almost all international legal instruments on human rights , and has thereby reaffirmed its intention to build a secular democratic state based on the rule of law ; a post of ORG had been created there .

The issue of whether [ the applicant ] is guilty of the crimes in respect of which [ the Tajikistani authorities ] have requested his extradition can only be assessed by a court in the requesting country examining the merits of the criminal case against him . Hence , [ the applicant 's ] and his lawyer 's arguments that he is not guilty and that the charges against him are fabricated are not subject to this court 's examination . ”

The City Court decision was silent on the issue of the applicant 's detention .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) , submitting that ORG had failed to take into account his arguments , supported by materials from various NGOs , that he would be subjected to torture in the event of extradition . He also averred that ORG had disregarded that at the time of its examination of the case appeal proceedings against the ORG decision to refuse him refugee status had been pending .

On DATE the applicant lodged an additional appeal statement with ORG submitting that ORG had failed to assess PERSON opinion and materials from various NGOs attesting to the existence of systematic problems with torture in NORP and had limited its assessment to the DATE letter stating merely that “ there was no indication that [ the applicant 's ] civil rights would be violated in the event of his extradition ” . He stressed that ORG had confused the risk of torture with the risk of criminal prosecution , although the applicant 's position in that respect was unequivocal : he feared his extradition to NORP because he had already been subjected to torture there and he had fled to GPE for that reason . ORG conclusion that he had voluntarily left NORP was at odds with the fact that the applicant had fled from custody . Lastly , ORG had exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria to be granted refugee status , as it was for the civil courts to rule on that matter .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) examined the applicant 's appeal against the ORG decision . The applicant 's lawyer was present at the hearing , but the applicant did not attend . At the hearing the applicant 's lawyer filed a written request for release with ORG . He submitted that his detention in the absence of a judicial decision had exceeded the DATE limit set in LAW In that connection he referred to LAW CCrP , ORG decisions ORG . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and ORG ( see below ) and the fact that the latest court decision to place him in custody had been taken on DATE . He also complained that the ORG and ORG had refused to examine his complaints about his detention .

By a decision of the same date ORG dismissed the complaint , reproducing verbatim the text of the decision of DATE . The ORG decision was silent on the matter of the applicant 's detention .

On DATE the applicant filed an application for asylum with ORG of ORG ( “ the GPE FMS ” ) , stating that he could not return to NORP , where he had been subjected to ill - treatment . In particular , he submitted that in DATE he had been arrested by law enforcement officials who had tortured him with electricity and severely beaten him . DATE he had been transferred to the MNS , where he had been kept in a damp basement together with CARDINAL other persons . He had not been fed and had been allowed access to the toilet only twice a day . The applicant and other detainees were systematically beaten up with a view to extracting confessions about their involvement with ORG , to which they had finally had to confess because of the beatings . The ORG officers had forced the applicant and his fellow detainees to work on their construction site and had beaten them if they did not work properly . In DATE , while at a construction site , he had escaped because he could no longer endure the violence .

In an interview with an official of the GPE FMS on DATE , the applicant reiterated and confirmed his earlier submissions

On DATE the GPE ORG refused to grant the applicant asylum , finding that the reason for his request was his fear of being sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment if extradited . It further noted that when questioned by ORG officials , the applicant submitted that he had been unlawfully arrested by the NORP law enforcement officials and that he had fled from custody because he had been severely ill - treated . The ORG concluded that the grounds referred to by the applicant did not constitute well - founded fear of being persecuted in his home country .

On DATE the applicant appealed to the ORG of GPE ( “ the LOC ” ) against the decision of DATE , submitting that the NORP authorities were persecuting him on religious grounds in connection with his alleged membership of ORG , a banned religious organisation . Referring to LAW , he stressed that the migration authority had disregarded his consistent and convincing submissions in respect of the ill - treatment to which he had been subjected . Knowing that LAW made no provision for a detainee 's transportation to court hearings concerning their civil claims , the applicant did not request ORG to secure his presence .

On DATE the ORG examined the applicant 's complaint in the presence of his lawyer and dismissed it . The applicant was not brought to the hearing . The court found that in examining the applicant 's application the GPE ORG had obtained from ORG and their Tajikistani counterpart materials concerning his criminal prosecution in NORP . Those ORG bodies had not confirmed that the Tajikistani authorities were persecuting NORP nationals because of their religious beliefs , or torturing them or treating them inhumanely in connection with criminal proceedings against them . Although the applicant had arrived in GPE in DATE , he had applied for asylum only after his arrest with a view to extradition . In sum , the applicant had failed to adduce convincing reasons showing that he had well - founded fears of being persecuted in NORP on political , racial , religious , national or ethnic grounds or because of his membership of a particular social group , and had only applied to the migration authorities because of his criminal prosecution .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , submitting that ORG had disregarded his detailed and consistent submissions concerning the illtreatment to which he had been subjected while in custody in NORP and his persecution on religious grounds . He also averred that the district court had disregarded a number of reports of ORG bodies and NGOs attesting to the widespread practice of ill - treatment of detainees by law enforcement authorities in NORP .

DATE . On DATE ORG set aside the decision of DATE and remitted the case at first instance for fresh examination .

On DATE ORG upheld the migration authority 's refusal to grant the applicant asylum , reproducing almost verbatim the reasoning of its decision of DATE . The court also noted that as the applicant only feared criminal prosecution and thus did not qualify for asylum it would not attach any weight to his submissions concerning the risk of ill - treatment in NORP in the event of extradition and the general human rights situation in that country .

The applicant appealed against the decision . Referring to reports of various NGOs , he stressed that the problem of ill - treatment of detainees persisted in NORP and that he feared his extradition not only because of the general situation in the country but also because of his own experience of ill - treatment at the hands of the ORG officials , who were persecuting him on religious grounds . However , ORG had refused to take that information into account and limited its assessment to the information provided by the NORP State authorities .

On DATE officers of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ the ORG ” ) interviewed the applicant in the remand facility in connection with his application for international protection .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE in the presence of the applicant 's lawyer . The ORG decision , in its relevant part , stated :

“ On DATE [ Mr ] ORG , a national of ORG , held in GPE in GPE , applied for refugee status .

In his questionnaire [ анкета ] and report form [ опросный лист ] [ the applicant ] stated that there was a real risk of his persecution by law enforcement officials who had arrested him in DATE in Khudzhand and charged him with being a member of ORG . Moreover , [ the applicant ] stated that he feared criminal prosecution and had been subjected to ill - treatment while in detention [ in NORP ] .

In arriving at its conclusions the [ GPE FMS ] examined information submitted by ORG and concerning [ the applicant 's ] prosecution by the ORG prosecutor 's office on various charges under Articles of LAW .

There is no indication of [ the applicant 's ] persecution on religious grounds in the Bobodzhon - Gafurovskiy prosecutor 's office 's decision of DATE to charge the applicant [ with his activities within ORG ] .

From the impugned decision [ of the GPE FMS ] it transpires that in arriving at its conclusions the authority took into account information from the [ NORP ] Prosecutor General 's Office and their Tajikistani counterpart .

In examining [ the applicant 's ] complaint , the [ District ] court correctly established that the applicant had not referred to any humanitarian reasons to be granted temporary asylum in GPE , such as precise details of his personal persecution by the Tajikistani authorities , [ or stated ] that in the event of his return there existed a real risk to his personal safety from the [ Tajikistani ] authorities . He had not justified his application for temporary asylum by his state of health or the need for medical assistance . He also failed to submit any evidence that there were obstacles to his returning to NORP . ”

On DATE the applicant applied to the GPE FMS for temporary asylum . The outcome of those proceedings is unclear .

On DATE the ORG office informed the applicant 's lawyer that it had examined her client 's application for international protection . The examination established that the applicant was “ outside his country of nationality due to well - founded fear of being persecuted by the authorities of his country for reasons of imputed political opinions ” , that he was “ unable to return to GPE and thus “ eligible for international protection under the ORG mandate ” .

On DATE the Nagatinskiy ORG of GPE ordered the applicant 's placement in custody pending extradition , with reference to ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the NORP CCrP and LAW of ORG ( “ the GPE Convention ” – see LAW below ) . The court stated , in particular , that the applicant was charged under LAW with a crime carrying a sentence of imprisonment , that he had fled from custody , did not have a permanent place of residence or registration in GPE and might , consequently , again abscond to avoid prosecution . It further stated that the need to place the applicant in custody was also justified by his eventual extradition to NORP , and that the related proceedings had been instituted following the NORP authorities ' petition under LAW of LAW . The decision did not specify the term of the applicant 's detention and stated that it was open to appeal before ORG within DATE after its delivery . There is no indication that the applicant challenged the decision on appeal .

On DATE , the Simonovskiy District Court of GPE ordered the applicant 's placement in custody pending extradition , referring to LAW ORG and LAW . The court stated that ORG was verifying the materials in respect of the applicant 's extradition and that no grounds preventing it had been established . On DATE the Nagatinskiy ORG had ordered the applicant 's placement in custody pending receipt of the formal request for his extradition under LAW of LAW . By the time of the examination of the case by ORG , that request had been received . The applicant was charged with having escaped from custody which , under LAW , was punishable with over DATE imprisonment . Furthermore , the applicant had absconded , he did not have a permanent place of residence or a permanent job in GPE and his name was on the international list of wanted persons . Hence , the applicant 's requests for application of a non - custodial preventive measure were unfounded and he was to be remanded in custody . The decision did not set a time - limit for the applicant 's detention and stated that it was open to appeal before ORG within DATE after its delivery . There is no indication that the applicant challenged the decision on appeal .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that his detention in the absence of a judicial decision had exceeded the DATE term set in LAW He referred to LAW decisions nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL-O - P ( see the section on Relevant Domestic Law below ) and the fact that the latest court decision to place him in custody had been taken on DATE . He requested his immediate release .

On DATE the ORG disallowed the applicant 's complaint , finding that he had failed to comply with the formal requirements for lodging a civil claim , laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure . The applicant was invited to rectify the shortcomings and informed of his right to appeal against the decision .

On DATE the applicant complained about his detention to the Nagatinskiy ORG . In particular , he averred that the latest detention order authorising his placement in custody was dated DATE and that neither that decision nor the previous CARDINAL dated DATE specified the term of his detention . In any event , since DATE the Nagatinskiy prosecutor 's office had not requested the courts to extend his detention pursuant to LAW , so it had become unlawful after the expiry of the CARDINAL initially authorised DATE terms ; that is to say that out of DATE the applicant had spent in custody , DATE of that detention had been unlawful . Furthermore , the ORG had refused to examine the applicant 's complaint about detention and ORG had likewise disregarded his request for release submitted at the hearing of DATE . Relying on Articles QUANTITY CARDINAL of the Convention , the ORG 's case - law , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG and the practice of ORG , the applicant insisted that his detention had been unlawful , that he had not been provided with an effective remedy to complain about it and that the applicable legislation did not meet the requisite standards of quality of the law . Lastly , he argued that the extradition check against him had been finalised on DATE and that after that date no action was taken with a view to extraditing him .

On DATE the Nagatinskiy ORG refused to examine the applicant 's complaint . It held firstly that the applicant had failed to appeal against the decision of DATE within the required time - limits . As to the alleged inaction of the prosecutor 's office , it was open to the applicant to complain about it under LAW CCrP to ORG , which had territorial jurisdiction over the matter .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG , reiterating his submissions made in the complaint of CARDINAL DATE .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG returned the applicant 's complaint of CARDINAL DATE , stating that in the GPE criminal proceedings were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the ORG and that the applicant had failed to refer to any provisions of the ORG in his submissions .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about his detention , averring that he had been held in custody for DATE and that DATE of that detention had been unlawful because the prosecutor 's office had failed to request the courts to extend it . He also stressed that the decision to extradite him had become final in DATE , after which date no action had been taken with a view to extraditing him .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the decision of DATE . It held , in particular , that it was open to the applicant to complain about his detention to a court having territorial jurisdiction or to an appeal court .

On DATE ORG replied to the applicant that his detention had been authorised first by the Nagatinskiy and then by ORG , pursuant to LAW According to LAW ORG , the maximum term of detention of persons charged with particularly serious crimes was DATE . ORG had decided on the applicant 's extradition on DATE , that is within the required time - limit . The applicant 's ensuing detention was prompted by his appeals to the courts against the extradition order and by the decision of ORG to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG . As to ORG of DATE ( see below ) , it was applicable only to persons in respect of whom the NORP authorities were carrying out an extradition check , and not to those in respect of whom ORG had already issued an extradition order . In the applicant 's case ORG had decided on DATE to extradite him and that decision was to be enforced .

DATE . On DATE the ORG to the President of GPE ( “ the ombudsman ” ) wrote to ORG stating , in particular , that ORG had recently found a breach of LAW on account of the unsatisfying quality of the law in several cases involving persons detained pending extradition . Yet the practice continued , in breach of the applicable NORP legislation , of keeping in custody foreign nationals whose detention on remand had not been extended . The ombudsman opined that the problem lay in the domestic authorities ' inconsistent practice in applying the relevant legislation , and had persisted even after ORG Ruling no . ORG Ruling no . CARDINAL ( see Relevant Domestic Law below ) . The ombudsman referred to the GPE , GPE , PERSON and NORP cases , which were pending before the Court , in which the term of the applicants ' detention pending extradition had exceeded the DATE maximum term laid down in LAW

The ombudsman further stressed that on CARDINAL DATE the DATE maximum detention term was about to expire for the applicant in the present case and that the domestic courts had twice authorised his remand in custody without setting any time - limit for his detention . He also stated that the Government were justifying the detention on remand of the applicants in the above - mentioned cases by the fact that ORG had indicated to them under LAW to suspend their extradition . However , nothing in ORG Rules provided for the respondent ORG 's obligation to hold detainees whose extradition was suspended in custody in breach of the NORP legislation . Lastly , the ombudsman asked ORG to carefully examine the situation of the persons mentioned in his letter , in particular with regard to the extension of their detention for an unlimited period of time , and to further improvement of the legislation and its correct application in order to prevent possible violations of the Convention .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE replied to the ombudsman . The letter , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

... the decisions to extradite the applicants in the cases mentioned [ in your letter ] were taken within the time - limits established by LAW ORG , the lawfulness of those decisions was verified by the courts and those decisions are bound to be executed . To release the above - mentioned persons from custody would entail breach by GPE of its international obligations concerning extradition .

The possibility to apply the provisions of the CCrP in respect of the time - limits for the detention of persons held in custody pending extradition was first mentioned in LAW no . CARDINAL-O ... In its Ruling ... no . CARDINAL-O ORG stated that in its previous Ruling no . CARDINAL-O it had not , and could not have , established what particular provisions of the ORG were to regulate the procedures and time - limits for the detention of persons in custody pending extradition ... as it had no jurisdiction in the matter ...

ORG , in its replies of DATE and DATE to ORG requests for clarification , explained that in deciding on procedures and time - limits for the detention of persons detained pending extradition , the authorities were to apply the provisions of the CCrP. However , this issue had never been examined by the Plenary of ORG and the practice of the domestic authorities in this respect had not been studied or summarised .

Until DATE there was no uniform judicial practice on this category of cases in different regions of GPE . Some judges requested that the time - limits for detention be extended , others refused to extend those time - limits , considering it unnecessary .

On DATE , following ORG Ruling no . CARDINAL ... , ORG office sent out to prosecutors in all regions of GPE an information letter explaining the order on extending the time - limits for the detention of persons in respect of whom the extradition check was pending and the decision to extradite was not yet final ... Further time - limits for the detention of a person pending extradition are regulated by LAW of the CCrP.

The lengthy detention of Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and [ the applicant ] Mr A.Gaforov ... is at the present moment a consequence of ORG application of Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court pending the examination of their cases [ by ORG ] . ”

On DATE the PERSON district prosecutor ordered the applicant 's release from custody , finding that the time - limits for his detention under LAW of the ORG had expired and that there was no reason to extend his detention .

On DATE the Babushkinskiy ORG dismissed the prosecutor 's request to confine the applicant to the detention centre for foreign nationals [ центр содержания иностранных граждан ORG по г. GPE ] . The court held that only persons charged with administrative offences could be held in the above - mentioned centre and that , in any event , the maximum time - limits for the applicant 's detention had expired pursuant to ORG - CARDINAL of the CCrP.

It appears that the applicant was released shortly thereafter .

LAW of the CCrP governs the application of preventive measures . Preventive measures may be applied to a suspect or a person charged with an offence where it is probable that the person in question might abscond , continue to engage in criminal activities , threaten witnesses or hinder the investigation ( LAW ) . When deciding on the necessity to apply a preventive measure , it is necessary to take into account the gravity of the charges and the various personal details of the person concerned ( LAW . Placement in custody is a preventive measure applied on the basis of a court decision to a person suspected of or charged with a crime punishable with DATE imprisonment where it is impossible to apply a more lenient preventive measure ( LAW ) . A request for placement in custody should be lodged by a prosecutor ( or an investigator or inquirer with a prosecutor 's prior approval ) LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . The request should be examined by a judge of a district court or a military court of a corresponding level ( LAW ) . A judge 's decision on placement in custody may be challenged before an appeal court within DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . The period of detention pending investigation of a crime can not exceed DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) but may be extended DATE by a judge of a district court or a military court of a corresponding level , further to a request lodged by a prosecutor ( or an investigator or inquirer with a prosecutor 's prior approval ) ( LAW ) . Further extensions up to DATE may be granted at the request of an investigator , with the approval of a prosecutor of GPE , only if the person is charged with a serious or particularly serious criminal offence or offences ( LAW ) .

LAW of the CCrP lays down the procedure by which acts or decisions of a court or public official in criminal proceedings may be challenged . Acts or omissions of a police officer in charge of the inquiry , an investigator , a prosecutor or a court may be challenged by “ parties to criminal proceedings ” or by “ other persons in so far as the acts and decisions [ in question ] touch upon those persons ' interests ” ( LAW ) . Those acts or omissions may be challenged before a prosecutor ( LAW ) . Decisions taken by police or prosecution investigators or prosecutors not to initiate criminal proceedings , or to discontinue them , or any other decision or inaction capable of impinging upon the rights of “ parties to criminal proceedings ” or of “ hindering an individual 's access to court ” may be subject to judicial review ( LAW ) .

DATE . Under LAW , upon receipt of a request for extradition not accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court , ORG or his or her deputy is to decide on the preventive measure in respect of the person whose extradition is sought “ in accordance with the established procedure ” . If a foreign court 's decision to place a person in custody is appended to the extradition request , a prosecutor is entitled to place that person under house arrest or remand him or her in custody without the NORP courts validating his decision ( LAW ) .

LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) lays down the procedure and conditions for the detention of persons arrested under the ORG on suspicion of criminal offences ; it also applies to persons suspected or accused of criminal offences who are remanded in custody ( LAW Persons suspected or accused of criminal offences have a right to lodge complaints with a court or another authority concerning the lawfulness and reasonableness of their detention ( Article CARDINAL ) ) .

The Constitutional Court examined the compatibility of LAW of the CCrP with LAW and reiterated its constant case - law that excessive or arbitrary detention , unlimited in time and without appropriate review , was incompatible with LAW in all cases , including extradition proceedings .

In ORG view , the guarantees of the right to liberty and personal integrity set out in DATE and LAW , as well as the legal norms of LAW of the ORG on preventive measures , were fully applicable to detention with a view to extradition . Accordingly , LAW ORG did not allow the authorities to apply a custodial measure without complying with the procedure established in the ORG , or in excess of the time - limits fixed therein .

The Prosecutor General asked ORG for an official clarification of its decision no . CARDINAL-O of DATE ( see above ) , for the purpose , in particular , of elucidating the procedure for extending a person 's detention with a view to extradition .

ORG dismissed the request on the ground that it was not competent to indicate specific provisions of the criminal law governing the procedure and time - limits for holding a person in custody with a view to extradition . That was a matter for the courts of general jurisdiction .

In this decision ORG reiterated that LAW ORG did not imply that detention of a person on the basis of an extradition request did not have to comply with the terms and time - limits provided for in the legislation on criminal procedure .

By a decision ( решение ) of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE granted ORG request and classified a number of international and regional organisations as terrorist organisations , including ORG ( also known as ORG ) , and prohibited their activities on NORP soil . It held that ORG aimed to overthrow non - NORP governments and to establish “ NORP governance on an international scale by reviving a Worldwide NORP Caliphate ” , in the first place in the regions with predominantly NORP populations , including GPE and other members of ORG .

By a Directive Decision No.CARDINAL adopted by LAW of ORG of GPE on DATE , ( “ Directive Decision of DATE ” ) ORG issued several instructions to the courts on the application of LAW The Plenary reiterated that any party to criminal proceedings or other person whose rights and freedoms were affected by actions or the inaction of the investigating or prosecuting authorities in criminal proceedings could invoke LAW ORG to challenge a refusal to institute criminal proceedings or a decision to terminate them . The ORG stated that whilst the bulk of decisions amenable to judicial review under LAW also included decisions to institute criminal proceedings , refusals to admit a defence counsel or to grant victim status , a person could not rely on LAW to challenge a court 's decision to apply bail or house arrest or to remand a person in custody . It was further stressed that in declaring a specific action or inaction of a law enforcement authority unlawful or unjustified , a judge was not entitled to annul the impugned decision or to oblige the official responsible to annul it but could only request him or her to rectify the indicated shortcomings . Should the authority concerned fail to comply with the court 's instructions , an interested party could complain to a court about the authority 's inaction and the latter body could issue a special decision [ частное определение ] , drawing the authority 's attention to the situation . Lastly , the decision stated that a prosecutor 's decision to place a person under house arrest or to remand him or her in custody with a view to extradition could be appealed against to a court under LAW

In a Directive Decision No . CARDINAL , adopted by LAW of ORG of GPE on DATE ( “ Directive Decision of DATE ” ) , it was stated that , pursuant to LAW ORG , only a court could order placement in custody of a person in respect of whom an extradition check was pending and the authorities of the country requesting extradition had not submitted a court decision to place him or her in custody . The judicial authorisation of placement in custody in that situation was to be carried out in accordance with LAW ORG and following a prosecutor 's petition to place that person in custody . In deciding to remand a person in custody a court was to examine if there existed factual and legal grounds for applying the preventive measure . If the extradition request was accompanied by a detention order of a foreign court , a prosecutor was entitled to remand the person in custody without a NORP court 's authorisation ( LAW ORG ) for a period not exceeding DATE , and the prosecutor 's decision could be challenged in the courts under LAW In extending a person 's detention with a view to extradition a court was to apply LAW

Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG on the right of rejected asylum seekers to an effective remedy against decisions on expulsion in the context of LAW reads as follows :

“ ORG ...

Without prejudice to the exercise of any right of rejected asylum seekers to appeal against a negative decision on their asylum request , as recommended , among others , in ORG No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG ,

Recommends that governments of member states , while applying their own procedural rules , ensure that the following guarantees are complied with in their legislation or practice :

An effective remedy before a national authority should be provided for any asylum seeker whose request for refugee status is rejected and who is subject to expulsion to a country about which that person presents an arguable claim that he or she would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .

NORP In applying paragraph CARDINAL of this recommendation , a remedy before a national authority is considered effective when : ...

that authority has competence both to decide on the existence of the conditions provided for by LAW and to grant appropriate relief ; ...

NORP the execution of the expulsion order is suspended until a decision under CARDINAL is taken . ”

ORG for Human Rights issued a Recommendation ( CommDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) on DATE concerning the rights of aliens wishing to enter a ORG Member ORG and the enforcement of expulsion orders , part of which reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . It is essential that the right of judicial remedy within the meaning of LAW ORG be not only guaranteed in law but also granted in practice when a person alleges that the competent authorities have contravened or are likely to contravene a right guaranteed by the ORG . The right of effective remedy must be guaranteed to anyone wishing to challenge a refoulement or expulsion order . It must be capable of suspending enforcement of an expulsion order , at least where contravention of ORG CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the ORG is alleged . ”

For other relevant documents , see the ORG 's judgment in the case of NORP [ PERSON ] v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL ORG

When performing actions requested under LAW , to which GPE and GPE are parties , a requested official body applies its country 's domestic laws ( LAW ) .

Upon receipt of a request for extradition , the requested country should immediately take measures to search for and arrest the person whose extradition is sought , except in cases where no extradition is possible ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The person whose extradition is sought may be arrested before receipt of a request for extradition if there is a related petition . The petition must contain a reference to a detention order and indicate that a request for extradition will follow ( LAW ) . If the person is arrested or placed in detention before receipt of the extradition request , the requesting country must be informed immediately ( LAW ) .

A person detained pending extradition pursuant to LAW must be released if the requesting country fails to submit an official request for extradition with all requisite supporting documents within DATE from the date of placement in custody ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

The “ Conclusions and Recommendations : NORP ” , issued by ORG on DATE ( CAT / C / TJK / CO/CARDINAL ) , pointed out the following areas of concern regarding the human rights situation in the country :

“ The definition of torture provided in domestic law ... is not fully in conformity with the definition in LAW , particularly regarding purposes of torture and its applicability to all public officials and others acting in an official capacity .

There are numerous allegations concerning the widespread routine use of torture and ill - treatment by law enforcement and investigative personnel , particularly to extract confessions to be used in criminal proceedings . Further , there is an absence of preventive measures to ensure effective protection of all members of society from torture and ill - treatment .

The ORG is also concerned at :

( a ) NORP The lack of a legal obligation to register detainees immediately upon loss of liberty , including before their formal arrest and arraignment on charges , the absence of adequate records regarding the arrest and detention of persons , and the lack of regular independent medical examinations ;

( b ) Numerous and continuing reports of hampered access to legal counsel , independent medical expertise and contacts with relatives in the period immediately following arrest , due to current legislation and actual practice allowing a delay before registration of an arrest and conditioning access on the permission or request of officials ;

( c ) Reports that unlawful restrictions of access to lawyers , doctors and family by ORG agents are not investigated or perpetrators duly punished ;

( d ) The lack of fundamental guarantees to ensure judicial supervision of detentions , as the ORG is also empowered to exercise such oversight ;

( e ) NORP The extensive resort to pretrial detention that may last up to DATE ; and

( f ) The high number of deaths in custody .

There are continuing and reliable allegations concerning the frequent use of interrogation methods that are prohibited by the LAW by both law enforcement officials and investigative bodies .

There are reports that there is no systematic review of all places of detention , by national or international monitors , and that regular and unannounced access to such places is not permitted . ”

The report by ORG entitled “ The State of The World 's Human Rights ” , released in DATE , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

There were continuing reports of unlawful arrests and widespread and routine torture or other ill - treatment by law enforcement officers , several of whom were sentenced to prison terms .

PERSON , a member of ORG ( IRP ) , died in police custody in DATE after he was detained for questioning by law enforcement officers in PERSON . Initially the officers claimed that he had committed suicide by jumping from a third floor window . The IRP claimed that an autopsy report indicated that he had been beaten and ill - treated , and alleged that he had been pushed from the window . The general prosecutor 's office subsequently announced that following an investigation CARDINAL officers had been detained . ”

In its “ World Report DATE NORP ” of DATE ORG stated as follows :

“ NORP 's human rights situation continues to be characterized by lack of access to justice , due process violations , incommunicado detention , and ill - treatment in custody . The government interferes with opposition political parties . Government harassment of non - traditional religious groups and NORP groups that are independent of state - controlled religious bodies has intensified .

Torture and Ill - treatment in Custody

Human rights organizations and lawyers continue to receive reports of arbitrary arrests , violations of detention procedures and fair trial standards , and credible , serious allegations of ill - treatment and torture in detention . Defense lawyers themselves are subject to threats and harassment if they insist on effective assistance of counsel .

NORP has not amended its law on torture to comply fully with ORG recommendations to the country in DATE . Law enforcement officials can be charged with " abuse of professional competency " ( criminal code article CARDINAL ) , but not with torture . National legislation does not prohibit torture evidence from being admitted at trial .

Impunity for ill - treatment in detention continues to be widespread . There were , however , CARDINAL cases in DATE in which law enforcement officers were prosecuted for ill - treatment . In DATE police lieutenant ORG was sentenced to DATE imprisonment by a court in PERSON for the unlawful detention and ill - treatment of CARDINAL detainees . In another case in DATE , CARDINAL police officers were each sentenced to DATE imprisonment for beating and torturing with electrical shock a CARDINAL-year - old boy in the capital , GPE . All CARDINAL men were convicted under article CARDINAL .

Actions in the Name of Countering Terrorism and Extremism

In DATE law enforcement bodies continued to arrest individuals simply because they were accused of possessing leaflets of ORG ut - GPE , a banned NORP organization , and CARDINAL alleged PERSON ut - GPE members were sentenced to DATE imprisonment each for " incitement of ethnic and religious hatred " and " membership in extremist organizations . " In the first case of a child being imprisoned for membership in ORG ut - GPE , ORG , a DATE boy , was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

In DATE ORG banned another CARDINAL organizations , including ORG , as " extremist . " In DATE a small NORP group , Mavlavi , was banned on the grounds that it holds " unsanctioned gatherings . "

NORP and NORP citizens continue to be arrested for alleged membership in ORG . In these highly political cases involving terrorism charges , the suspects are frequently denied procedural protection and the right to a fair trial , and routinely suffer from inhumane treatment in detention .

Visiting NORP in DATE , ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights PERSON called on the government to ensure better access to justice and to allow local and international monitors , including ORG , to visit detention places . PERSON , the ORG special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief , visited NORP in DATE , concluding that religious communities and individuals faced " challenges , " and underscoring the importance of the government 's ensuring that " especially vulnerable individuals " be protected " from harassment by non - State actors in the name of religion . "

In DATE ORG issued CARDINAL decisions on applications alleging abuses by NORP authorities . It found that in both PERSON v. NORP , and GPE and GPE v. GPE the victims had been subjected to torture and unfair trial . The decisions urge NORP authorities to ensure effective remedy to the applicants , including compensation , and in the PERSON case to immediately release the victim . At this writing the government has not implemented the decisions . ”

In its DATE report of DATE ORG , an NGO established in NORP , provided the following information on the situation regarding torture in detention in that country :

“ In NORP PERCENT of victims of torture are able to prove that fact and have the perpetrators punished ... This conclusion is based on the findings of the research of practice of ill - treatment by law enforcement officials at arrest and during the preliminary investigation carried out by the ORG of lawyers and the public foundation “ ORG ” . Having interviewed the victims , the researchers came to the following conclusions .

The detainees stated that they had been subjected to the following methods of illtreatment : psychological pressure PERCENT ; being hit , kicked and beaten with truncheon on different parts of the body – PERCENT ; threats of physical violence – PERCENT . PERCENT of victims stated that they had been simultaneously subjected to various forms of torture , in particular , torture with electricity , threats and beatings .

PERCENT of victims of torture and ill - treatment suffered from psychological disorder , CARDINAL of the interviewed had bodily injuries . PERCENT of victims of torture or illtreatment had grave bodily injuries . There were also fatal cases [ among those examined by the researchers ] . There were suspiciously many cases of suicides committed in custody .

The research showed that the perpetrators were mostly unpunished . The main reason for this was that the majority of victims of torture were not complaining to law enforcement bodies . PERCENT [ of the interviewed ] submitted such complaints . The main reasons for failure to complain were fear of reprisals ( PERCENT ) , lack of trust towards the law enforcement officials ( PERCENT ) , lack of knowledge of the relevant procedures ( PERCENT ) .... ”

The World Report chapter on NORP by ORG released in DATE , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Actions in the Name of Countering Terrorism and Extremism

Following a recommendation by the prosecutor general , ORG designated PERSON , a group that supports the reestablishment of the ORG , or NORP state , by peaceful means , an " extremist " organization . The government continued to arrest alleged PERSON ut - GPE members and convict them either of sedition or incitement to racial , ethnic , or religious hatred , often simply for possessing the organization 's leaflets .

Torture and Deaths in Custody

NORP 's definition of torture does not comply fully with ORG recommendations to the country in DATE . In a positive move , in DATE the Criminal Procedure Code was amended to make evidence obtained under torture inadmissible in court proceedings .

Experts agree that in most cases there is impunity for rampant torture in NORP . In CARDINAL of the few cases that reached the courts , CARDINAL policemen in GPE province were convicted in DATE for ill - treating minors ; CARDINAL of the CARDINAL received a fouryear prison sentence , and the other a suspended sentence .

NGOs and local media reported CARDINAL deaths in custody in DATE , including the death from cancer of the ex - deputy chair of ORG Revival PERSON . The party alleged his arrest in DATE was politically motivated and claimed that his life could have been saved had he been allowed to undergo surgery .

In DATE decision ( PERSON v. NORP ) ORG found that NORP violated the rights , including freedom from torture , of CARDINAL applicants , CARDINAL of them minors when they were arrested . NORP failed to cooperate with the committee 's consideration of the complaint . Similar violations were established in DATE decision ( NORP and GPE v. NORP ) ” .

In DATE ORG released its World Report DATE , where the chapter on NORP , in so far as relevant , states :

“ Torture is routinely used by law enforcement officials , and the NORP government continues to deny human rights groups access to places of detention .

Torture

Torture is practiced by law enforcement officers and within the penitentiary system in a culture of near - impunity . It is often used to extract confessions from defendants , who during initial detention are often denied access to family and legal counsel . To date the NORP government has refused all requests from human rights groups to visit detention sites , interrogation rooms and prisons .

NORP 's definition of torture does not fully comply with recommendations made to the country by ORG in DATE . In a small sign of a progress , local and international human rights groups recently completed a campaign to document instances of torture in GPE , as part of a twoyear project funded by ORG . That project , which was run in GPE by ORG , determined that over DATE there had been CARDINAL cases of torture .

Freedom of Religion

There continued to be reports of the NORP authorities prosecuting alleged members of PERSON , an international NORP organization that is banned in several countries in the region , and sentencing them to long prison terms on questionable evidence . ”

NORP The DATE GPE ORG on ORG , released on DATE , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ The government 's human rights record remained poor , and corruption continued to hamper democratic and social reform . The following human rights problems were reported : ... torture and abuse of detainees and other persons by security forces ; impunity of security forces ; denial of right to fair trial ; harsh and life - threatening prison conditions ; prohibition of international monitor access to prisons ; ...

The law prohibits [ cruel , inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment ] , but some security officials used beatings or other forms of coercion to extract confessions during interrogations , although the practice was not systematic . Officials did not grant sufficient access to information to allow human rights organizations to investigate claims of torture .

In GPE region , CARDINAL suspects arrested in a murder case claimed investigators tortured them seeking to extract confessions . CARDINAL suspect claimed an investigator threatened to ' ruin ' his daughter if he did not confess to a crime . The same individual stated he lost toenails as a result of torture while in custody . The courts dismissed the individual 's claim of torture , and he was convicted of murder and other crimes and sentenced to DATE in prison . Several individuals held in GPE city jails also claimed they were beaten while in custody . Articles in the criminal code do not specifically define torture , and the country 's law enforcement agencies have not developed effective methods to investigate allegations of torture . According to a report during DATE by ORG , ' Experts agreed that in most cases there is impunity for rampant torture in NORP ' .

In an DATE court decision ( PERSON v. NORP ) ORG found that the government violated the human rights , including freedom from torture , of CARDINAL adults and CARDINAL minors . The committee also noted that the government failed to cooperate with the committee and that similar allegations were substantiated in an DATE court decision ( GPE and GPE v. NORP ) . Denial of access to detention centres impeded efforts to determine if any improvements had occurred since then .

ORG ( ORG ) continued to deny access to prisons or detention facilities to representatives of the international community and civil society seeking to investigate claims of harsh treatment or conditions . Some foreign diplomatic missions and NGOs were given access to implement assistance programs or carry out consular functions , but their representatives were limited to administrative or medical sections , and ORG personnel accompanied them . The government did not sign an agreement with ORG ( ICRC ) to allow free and unhindered access to prisons and detention centres , and the ORG 's international monitoring staff has not returned to the country since DATE .

Detainees and inmates described harsh and life - threatening prison conditions , including extreme overcrowding and unsanitary conditions . Disease and hunger were serious problems , but outside observers were unable to assess accurately the extent of the problems because authorities did not allow access to prisons . Organizations such as ORG reported that infection rates of tuberculosis and HIV were significant and that the quality of medical treatment was poor .

The government placed few checks on the power of prosecutors and police to make arrests . The criminal justice system operated under the criminal procedure code based on a DATE NORP law . Individuals reported that some prosecutors and courts pressed questionable criminal charges and that some officials influenced judges inappropriately to get convictions . In DATE the government approved a new criminal procedure code to replace the existing code in DATE .

Victims of police abuse may submit a formal complaint in writing to the officer 's superior or ORG . Most victims chose to remain silent rather than risking retaliation by the authorities .

By law prosecutors are empowered to issue arrest warrants , and there is no requirement for judicial approval of an order for pre - trial detention . Police may detain a suspect without a warrant in certain circumstances , but a prosecutor must be notified within TIME of arrest . After a warrant is issued , the police may hold a suspect TIME before arraignment . Defence advocates alleged that prosecutors often held suspects for longer periods and only registered the initial arrest when the suspect was ready to confess . Pre - trial detention may last as long as DATE in exceptional circumstances .

Prosecutors oversee pre - trial investigation and have the right to initiate criminal proceedings . Individuals have the right to an attorney upon arrest and the government must appoint lawyers for those who can not otherwise afford CARDINAL . In practice the government provided few attorneys for public defence , and these attorneys were generally ineffective . There is no bail system , although criminal detainees may be released conditionally and restricted to their place of residence pending trial . The typical length of pre - trial detention was DATE .

According to the law , family members are allowed access to prisoners only after indictment ; officials occasionally denied attorneys and family members access to detainees . Authorities held detainees charged in crimes related to national security incommunicado for long periods without formally charging them . In DATE , after relatives of former citizen ORG sought his whereabouts for DATE , the ORG admitted that ORG had been in state custody the entire period . ORG was sentenced to DATE imprisonment for espionage and attempting to overthrow the government , but he claimed security personnel obtained his confession to the crimes under physical and psychological duress .

The government generally provided a rationale for arrests , although some detainees claimed that authorities falsified charges or inflated minor problems to make politically motivated arrests . Some police and judicial officials regularly accepted bribes in exchange for lenient sentencing or release .

Authorities claimed that there were no political prisoners and that they did not make any politically motivated arrests . Opposition parties and local observers claimed the government selectively prosecuted political opponents . There was no reliable estimate of the number of political prisoners , but former opposition leaders claimed there were CARDINAL such prisoners held in the country , including former fighters of the ORG .

In DATE PERSON , deputy chairman of the unregistered ORG , died in prison after DATE of confinement for insulting and defaming President PERSON in a DATE unsent , unpublished letter . The government claimed his death was the result of natural causes . PERSON , head of ORG and former chairman of PERSON , the country 's state - run gas monopoly , remained in prison following his unlawful extradition from GPE and DATE conviction for corruption . Former interior minister PERSON remained in prison serving a CARDINAL-year sentence for crimes against the state and high treason following his DATE closed trial . ”

The chapter “ NORP ” in the ORG report “ The State of the World 's Human Rights ” , released in DATE , states , in so far as relevant :

“ The ORG continued to exert tight control over the exercise of religion . Reports of torture and other ill - treatment by law enforcement officers continued .

Torture and ill - treatment

Report of torture and ill - treatment by law enforcement officials continued , in particular , to extract confessions during TIME , the maximum period suspects could be held without charge .

On DATE , PERSON , a specialist in FAC , dies after being arrested by the police . He had been walking along the street when the police stopped him and accused him of being drunk . He protested , and CARDINAL policemen bundled him into a police car . ORG claimed that he died of a heart attack on the way to the police station . His mother reported injuries on her son 's face and body , and on DATE the Minister of the ORG announced an investigation into possible “ death through negligence ” . There was no public information about the progress of the investigation by DATE . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1 (non-enforcement);Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE ( GPE ) and GPE ( GPE ) .

NORP The applicants’ father owned a villa with a surface area of QUANTITY . m and CARDINAL adjacent plots of land measuring approximately QUANTITY . m and QUANTITY . m respectively . DATE the ORG father rented the villa to ORG ’s father .

On an unspecified date , as the villa was uninhabitable , the ORG granted the ORG father a compulsory loan of QUANTITY ( ALL ) for renovation of the villa .

In DATE ORG constructed CARDINAL additional buildings on the plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m. By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allocated the additional buildings to PERSON

As a result of the applicants’ father ’s failure to repay the debt , the villa was nationalised by virtue of decision no . CARDINAL of DATE . DATE ORG ’s family continued to live in the villa as tenants of a ORG - owned property .

In DATE , pursuant to ORG ( “ LAW ” ) , the applicants lodged a claim with ORG on ORG ( PERSON I GPE dhe PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG , holding that the nationalisation of the applicants’ father ’s villa had been illegal , awarded the applicants the villa ( with a surface area of QUANTITY . m ) and the plot of land measuring QUANTITY m , subject to the repayment of ALL CARDINAL ( representing the outstanding amount of their father ’s unpaid debt to the ORG which had led to the nationalisation of the properties ) . With regard to the plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m , in view of ORG ’s investment in the additional building , the Commission upheld his right of first refusal on the purchase of the land .

On an unspecified date in DATE , ORG , the tenant of the villa which had been allotted to the applicants , brought a civil action before ORG , claiming property rights over the villa and the adjacent plot of land . Moreover , he alleged that the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE should be declared null and void , in so far as it was in breach of LAW of LAW .

On DATE ORG declared the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE null and void . It found that according to an expert report , the outlays by the ORG and ORG ’s father on structural changes and annexes to the original building amounted to PERCENT of the property ’s original value . The ORG ’s decision was therefore held to have been in breach of LAW of LAW .

On DATE ORG , having examined an appeal by the applicants alleging a violation of their property rights , upheld ORG decision and dismissed the appeal .

The applicants appealed to ORG of ORG , which on DATE quashed the decisions of the above courts . It held that the decisions had been based on an expert report which was illogical and contained incorrect calculations and accordingly sent the case back for rehearing .

On DATE ORG , rehearing the case , declared the ORG ’s decision null and void . Relying on a new expert report , it held that the nationalisation of the applicants’ father ’s villa had been in accordance with substantive law requirements at the material time and that , consequently , the applicants could not benefit from the process of restitution of property . Moreover , the court upheld the applicants’ property rights over the CARDINAL adjacent plots of land and , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , decided on their right to receive compensation in one of the forms provided for by law .

On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants as being ill - founded .

The applicants lodged an appeal with ORG on the basis of LAW ( f ) of LAW . They alleged that ORG decision and ORG judgment had been unconstitutional .

On DATE ORG , in accordance with LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , decided de plano to declare the ORG complaint inadmissible as being “ outside its jurisdiction ” .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicants informed the ORG that the authorities had failed to comply with the final decision of DATE relating to the compensation issue .

The NORP LAW reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The right of private property is protected by law .

Property may be acquired by gift , inheritance , purchase , or any other ordinary means provided for by LAW .

The law may provide for expropriations or limitations in the exercise of a property right only in the public interest .

Expropriations , or limitations of a property right that are equivalent to expropriation , shall be permitted only in return for fair compensation .

A complaint may be lodged with a court to resolve disputes regarding the amount / extent of compensation due . ”

“ In the protection of his constitutional and legal rights , freedoms and interests , and in defence of a criminal charge , everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing , within a reasonable time , by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

“ State bodies shall comply with judicial decisions . ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall decide on : ...

( f ) final complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing , after all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted . ”

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE from the date when this LAW enters into force , ORG , guided by the criteria laid down in LAW , shall pass laws for the just resolution of different issues relating to expropriations and confiscations carried out before the approval of LAW .

Laws and other normative acts relating to expropriation and confiscation that were passed before the entry into force of this LAW shall be applied provided they are compatible with the latter . ”

ORG ( GPE për kthimin dhe kompensimin e pronës ) underwent several amendments during DATE .

LAW of DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , as amended by PERSON no . DATE ) , as in force at the time , in its relevant parts reads as follows :

“ Former owners and their legal heirs have the right of ownership . A former owner shall have the right either to have allocated the original land or to be awarded compensation in kind if CARDINAL of the following conditions is met :

( CARDINAL ) the alleged property was pasture , meadow , forestry land , or agricultural or non - agricultural land ;

( CARDINAL ) the alleged property was not subject to PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) the alleged property is currently ORG - owned ;

( CARDINAL ) the alleged property has been designated as suitable for construction and is situated within the boundaries of a city .

The restitution or compensation in kind shall not exceed QUANTITY . m pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , as amended by PERSON no . DATE . ”

“ Former owners shall be entitled to restitution of their former buildings without having to repay outlays made by the ORG or other owners on structural alterations , annexes or floor additions to former private buildings , where such outlays amount to PERCENT of the building ’s value .

Former owners shall be entitled to restitution of their former buildings once they have repaid PERCENT of the value of outlays , where such outlays amount to PERCENT of the building ’s value . The value of the outlays shall be calculated on the basis of construction prices at the time of the building ’s restitution . A building shall remain in co - ownership where the value of such outlays is PERCENT of the building ’s value . .... The courts shall have authority to resolve disputes between parties . ”

“ Where a building site or agricultural land that has been reclassified as a building site is occupied by a permanent construction , the former owners shall be compensated , within the limit fixed for expropriation , by CARDINAL of the following methods :

( a ) by means of ORG bonds , equivalent to the compensation owed , and with first option of acquiring shares in ORG enterprises being privatised by the ORG or in other activities carried out through the granting of loans ;

( b ) by means of an equivalent plot of land or building site near to an urban area , in accordance with the general urban - development regulations ;

( c ) by means of an equivalent plot of land in a tourist zone , in accordance with the general urban - development regulations .

Any outstanding amount after the application of ( b ) and ( c ) above shall be compensated according to other methods established by LAW .

ORG shall have the authority to define more detailed rules for determining the methods and deadlines for such compensation . ”

The new Property Act enacted in DATE provides for CARDINAL forms of restitution of property , namely the return , under certain circumstances , of the original property and compensation in the event of the impossibility for the authorities to return the original property . The LAW provides for CARDINAL forms of compensation : ( a ) a property of the same kind ; ( b ) a property of any other kind ; ( c ) shares in ORG - owned companies ; ( d ) the value of a ORG - owned property in the privatisation process , ( e ) a sum of money ( section CARDINAL ) .

The Act instituted ORG ( PERSON per GPE dhe GPE e Pronave ) , composed of CARDINAL members elected by ORG . Its role is to decide on the lawfulness of district GPE decisions . At district level decisions on restitution and compensation claims are to be taken by ORG ( section CARDINAL ) .

In accordance with the LAW , the persons entitled to claim restitution or compensation have to lodge an application for such purpose with ORG by DATE ( section DATE ) . The Act grants the committee discretion to decide which CARDINAL of the forms of compensation should be granted . The entitled persons have to express in writing their preferences regarding the form of compensation to be awarded . ORG decision may be appealed against to ORG ( section CARDINAL ) .

NORP In order to comply with the GPE decisions awarding payment of pecuniary compensation , section CARDINAL of the above - mentioned LAW provides for the establishment of a DATE ORG , whose aim is to provide financial support for such awards .

The above - mentioned LAW was scrutinised by both ORG and ORG .

On DATE ORG , concluded that LAW had no retroactive effect and that its provisions could therefore not have any impact on property rights recognised by administrative or court decisions given before its entry into force .

In DATE the Government ( as newly elected on DATE ) introduced in ORG a new bill on ORG , which proposes several amendments to LAW . The bill , which is currently pending before ORG , will be discussed in DATE .


Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the applicant privately sent a complaint to the deputy Governor of GPE . He reported on usurpation of a plot of communal land , adjacent to a public street in Iksha , by the private person Ms V. The applicant alleged that PERSON , the head of the Iksha town council , not only had failed to stand up for the rights of other Iksha residents but actively contributed to making the usurpation possible . In particular , PERSON had allegedly brought about premature retirement of a land surveyor who had objected to the usurpation ; she had interfered with the activities of court bailiffs who had come to reclaim the usurped land ; she had assisted ORG in obtaining title to the land by adverse possession ; and she had ostensibly made an exemption for ORG from regulations prohibiting planting of vegetables in the protected areas . The letter concluded as follows :

“ Such outrageous conduct of the appointed ( not elected ! ) head of the town council vis - à - vis the town residents , DATE in full view of everyone – discredits the power that appointed PERSON and sets an example of breaking the law with impunity provided that you can ' make a deal ' with the council head .

I ask you to state your opinion on ORG 's anti - social behaviour and assist [ us ] in returning the land plot into communal use , notwithstanding her opposition ... ”

On DATE PERSON lodged a civil action against the applicant for refutation of information damaging to her honour and dignity and compensation for non - pecuniary damage . She maintained that the applicant 's letter had contained untrue facts and insulting value - judgments , which could have damaged her reputation in the eyes of her hierarchical superiors , thereby causing her non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the ORG of the GPE Region granted PERSON defamation action , finding that the applicant had failed to prove the truthfulness of his allegations contained in the letter of CARDINAL DATE . Assessing the allegedly insulting value - judgments in the concluding paragraphs of the letter , the court held as follows :

“ In addition to failing to substantiate the said allegations with any proof , [ the applicant ] used expressions which , in their form and contents , are not appropriate in respect of an official , which the plaintiff is ...

Also , the court considers that the judgments used by the [ applicant ] in his letter – such as ' A. knows that by law protected areas may not be occupied , but ostensibly makes an exemption for ORG ' , ' such outrageous conduct ... discredits the power that appointed PERSON and sets an example of breaking the law with impunity provided that you can ' make a deal ' with the council head ' , ' A. 's anti - social behaviour ' – are not only untrue because the [ applicant ] failed to prove that these facts had occurred , but also insulting for ORG ; this information , phrased as insults , damages dignity and honour of the plaintiff , and it was sent to a deputy Governor of LOC , which might have led to belittlement of the plaintiff 's authority in the eyes of regional managers ... ”

The court bound the applicant to make a rectification by way of a letter to the deputy Governor of LOC and to pay MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) to Ms A. for non - pecuniary damage .

NORP The applicant lodged a statement of appeal , maintaining that his letter had stated his subjective view on the existing problem .

On DATE ORG partly upheld , on the applicant 's appeal , the judgment of DATE . It did not analyse the truthfulness of the factual allegations and grounded its judgment on the CARDINAL expressions quoted above in the last paragraph of the judgment of DATE . The appeal court struck down the obligation to send a rectification , but upheld the award in respect of non - pecuniary damage .

Article CARDINAL guarantees freedom of ideas and expression .

Article CARDINAL provides that NORP citizens shall have the right to petition in person , as well as to submit individual and collective appeals to , ORG authorities and local self - government bodies .

Article CARDINAL provides that an individual may apply to a court with a request for the rectification of “ statements ” ( “ сведения ” ) that are damaging to his or her honour , dignity or professional reputation if the person who disseminated such statements does not prove their truthfulness . The aggrieved person may also claim compensation for losses and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the dissemination of such statements .

Resolution no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE “ on certain issues that have arisen in the course of judicial examination of claims for the protection of honour and dignity of individuals , and professional reputation of individuals and legal entities ” ( as amended on DATE , in force at the material time ) established that the notion “ dissemination of information ” employed in LAW was understood as the publication of statements or their broadcasting , inclusion in professional references , public speeches , applications to ORG officials and communication in other forms , including oral , to CARDINAL another person . It specified , however , that “ communication of such information to the person whom it concerned could not be treated as dissemination ” .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

The applicant , Mr PERSON Serdyuk , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

In DATE the applicant , at that time a military officer , was engaged in emergency relief operations at the site of the GPE nuclear plant disaster , within the “ GPE alienation zone ” ( тридцятикілометрова зона або зона відчудження ) .

On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers adopted Resolution no . CARDINAL on the Procedure for ORG ( “ GPE identity cards ” ) to Victims of the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Disaster ( посвідчення учасника ліквідації наслідків аварії на Чорнобильській АEC ) .

On DATE ORG Пленум Верховного Суду України ) adopted Resolution no . CARDINAL “ On Judicial Practice on ORG Facts that are of LAW ” . According to this resolution , certificates acknowledging a person ’s status as a GPE relief worker could be issued on the basis of a court judgment establishing participation of the person concerned in any kind of GPE relief work .

In DATE the applicant applied to the GPE ORG of Chernigiv ( PERSON районний суд PERSON , hereafter “ the FAC ” ) seeking a declaratory judgment , acknowledging the fact that he had been involved in the GPE relief works .

In its ruling of DATE ORG acknowledged the fact that in DATE the applicant had been engaged for TIME in operations near the GPE nuclear power plant . This decision was mainly based on witness evidence .

On DATE and on the basis of this ruling , a GPE identity card acknowledging his status as a GPE relief worker was issued to the applicant . It entitled him to special State benefits and social payments .

On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers amended Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE by adopting ORG no . CARDINAL . By virtue of these amendments , court decisions establishing direct participation in any GPE relief work were removed from the list of grounds upon which a GPE identity card could be issued . In ORG no . CARDINAL , ORG further ordered the commissions on disputed issues regarding the determination of the status of persons who assisted in dealing with the consequences of the nuclear power plant disaster ( ORG з спірних питань визначення статусу осіб , які брали участь у ліквідації наслідків аварії на Чорнобильській АЕС , hereafter “ the GPE disputes commissions ” ) of ORG from the Consequences of the Chernobyl Disaster ( PERSON у справах захисту населення від наслідків аварії на Чорнобильській АЕС , hereafter “ ORG ) to undertake a case - by - case review of GPE identity cards granted previously on the basis of a judicial ruling .

On DATE , in the context of this review process , the GPE disputes commission annulled the applicant ’s GPE identity card , finding that the period during which he had been involved in emergency relief operations ( TIME of work in the alienation zone ) was insufficient for the GPE relief worker status . This decision was amenable to an appeal to a court of general jurisdiction .

On DATE ORG amended its Resolution of DATE to the effect that courts were no longer competent to establish facts related to entitlement to a GPE identity card .

On DATE the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the decision to annul his GPE identity card before the Radiansky ORG of GPE ( ORG районний суд PERSON ) who found the impugned decision lawful and reasonable . The applicant ’s subsequent appeal to ORG ( Київський міський суд ) was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a request for review of its decision of DATE with ORG on the ground of new circumstances . He stated that he had learned in DATE that his work in DATE in CARDINAL villages situated not far from GPE also counted for the calculation of the overall period of relief works .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s request , quashed the judgment of DATE and reopened the proceedings . The hearing was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE . By judgment of DATE the ORG established the fact that the applicant had participated in relief works in the alienation zone and had thus been involved in relief works for a period sufficient for eligibility for the GPE relief worker status . As no appeal was brought , this ruling became enforceable on DATE , whilst it remained possible for DATE as from DATE to file an appeal in cassation with ORG .

On DATE and on the basis of the judgment of DATE , the applicant filed a further request for a GPE identity card with ORG , which informed him on DATE that his request had been transmitted to ORG from the Consequences of the Chernobyl Disaster of ORG у справах захисту населення від наслідків PERSON катастрофи ORG обласної державної адміністрації ; hereafter “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE the ORG refused to issue a GPE identity card to the applicant as , pursuant to the applicable Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers , a court ruling could not serve as a ground for issuing a card . By letter of DATE , it further informed the applicant that , if he wished to file a fresh application for a GPE identity card , he should substantiate the period of time during which he had allegedly been involved in relief work in the alienation zone by submitting either a mission order to the alienation zone or a salary slip showing extra payments for having worked in this zone . Although the applicant could have filed an appeal with the civil court against the decision of DATE , he did not do so .

On DATE ORG , acting on a cassation appeal lodged by the ORG , quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh consideration , indicating that courts were not competent to establish facts for the purposes of obtaining the status of a GPE relief worker .

On DATE ORG , in the parties’ presence , gave a ruling in which it refused to entertain the applicant ’s request to establish the legal fact of his participation in the GPE relief works , holding that it lacked competence in the matter . It pointed out that , for this purpose , a special procedure had been established and that any claim should be substantiated by specific prescribed documents . It further referred to the Resolution of ORG . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal ( GPE суд ORG області ) , in the applicant ’s presence , upheld this decision . It stated , in particular , that specific administrative bodies had been designated by law to determine whether or not a person was entitled to a GPE identity card , and that the courts were not competent to determine such issues . It further pointed out that decisions taken by such an administrative body could be appealed before the courts under the terms of LAW . Although this ruling was immediately enforceable , an appeal in cassation lay with ORG within a DATE time - limit . The applicant did not avail himself of this remedy .

LAW provides that justice is administered exclusively by the courts . The delegation of the functions of the courts , and also the appropriation of these functions by other bodies or officials is not permitted . The jurisdiction of the courts extends to all legal relations that arise in the ORG .

In accordance with LAW , ORG is the highest judicial body within the system of courts of general jurisdiction in GPE . As prescribed by law , it examines in cassation proceedings decisions taken by lower general jurisdiction courts . Under LAW , ORG is composed of the President of ORG , all judges of ORG , the Presidents of the higher specialised courts and their first deputies . ORG provides , inter alia , the courts of general jurisdiction with recommendations and practice directions and supervises the correctness of any recommendation or practice direction issued by higher specialised courts .

ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and the text of ORG of ORG are set out in the ORG ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . GPE , § § DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ) .

According to ORG Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE , which amended its previous ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , decisions of special administrative bodies competent to establish legal facts in relation to entitlement to the status of GPE relief worker can be appealed before the first instance civil court and , subsequently , the civil court of cassation . At the material time , these courts had full jurisdiction both as regards the facts and the law .