No violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Examination of the case);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2-1 - Life;Article 2 - Right to life);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)

The first applicant was born in DATE and lived in the village of PERSON , GPE , GPE . She was killed on CARDINAL DATE in her house , along with CARDINAL other members of her family . The second applicant is the first applicant 's daughter . She was born in DATE and currently resides in GPE , where she sought asylum .

The facts of the case are partly disputed by the parties . In view of that , the ORG requested the ORG to submit copies of certain documents in relation to the applicants ' complaints . The submissions of the parties are summarised below in Part A. A summary of the documents submitted by the ORG is set out in Part B and a summary of other relevant documents in Part C below .

The first applicant lived in the village of PERSON in LOC in GPE , together with her husband , PERSON , and her children , PERSON , ORG ( the second applicant ) .

The first applicant was an active political figure in the Republic and participated in anti - war protests . DATE she worked with ORG .

The applicants submitted that on DATE NORP soldiers had entered the first applicant 's house to conduct a passport check . The first applicant and her son PERSON explained that their passports had been submitted to the local authority for renewal . This explanation had apparently been accepted and the soldiers had left .

On DATE at TIME CARDINAL men in military uniforms , some wearing balaclava masks , entered the house . CARDINAL men , apparently the same ones who had been in the house DATE , said that they were carrying out a passport check and ordered the first applicant , whom they had addressed by name , to go with them to the local police department to find out about her passport . The first applicant 's son PERSON was also ordered to go .

The first applicant and her son were taken to ORG of the Interior ( ORG ) . After TIME they were transferred to the GPE detention facility , where the first applicant and her son were separated .

The first applicant submitted that upon arrival in GPE she had been forced to watch other detainees being ill - treated . CARDINAL men were made to run naked , with their clothes folded in their arms , along a corridor QUANTITY long while the soldiers beat them .

The first applicant was forced to stand with her face to the wall , with her hands raised against the wall until TIME . The hall was unheated , with broken windows , and it was very cold . She was not allowed to sit or lie down . In the evening she was taken to a cell .

Cell no . CARDINAL , where the first applicant was detained , was very small . It contained CARDINAL metal beds and a toilet . CARDINAL to QUANTITY women were kept there at different times , and sometimes the detainees had to sleep in turns . The cell was very dirty and the stench from the toilet was unbearable . Once a day the detainees were given QUANTITY of water per cell and CARDINAL bowl of food for QUANTITY persons in dirty crockery .

During her detention the first applicant was humiliated constantly as a woman and as a person of NORP origin . The guards told her that she would not leave the place alive , that she would go insane or kill herself . The applicant was pushed and hit with rifle butts on many occasions . On CARDINAL occasion , DATE , the guards sprayed gas into each cell , causing the detainees to cough .

Other inmates in the cell , according to her submissions , included sick persons and children . The applicant witnessed other detainees being beaten and humiliated by the guards . Sometimes she could hear her son 's screams while he was being beaten in the corridor in front of her cell .

The first applicant was called for questioning CARDINAL times during her stay . The person questioning her did not state his name or rank and asked questions of a general character . The applicant was asked about her name and where she was from , to which clan she belonged , if she was a NORP and if she prayed . She was also asked questions about the “ peace march ” to GPE in which she had participated and who had financed it .

The first applicant , who suffered from cholecystitis and heart failure , was denied professional medical help while in detention . Her medical condition deteriorated rapidly . On CARDINAL occasion she fainted in the corridor and the guards only allowed other women inmates to carry her into the cell after TIME .

The second applicant submitted that she had brought food and medicines to her mother and brother in detention in GPE , but that little had reached them , as the soldiers had taken most of it .

In support of the first applicant 's submissions as to the conditions of detention in GPE the applicants submitted a statement by PERSON . , who had been detained in the same cell as the first applicant in DATE . She confirmed the first applicant 's submissions concerning the conditions of detention , the beatings of other detainees and the applicant 's health problems .

In addition , the applicants submitted press and NGO reports about the situation in the GPE detention facility at DATE and DATE , which described the intolerable conditions of detention and the widespread torture and ill - treatment of detainees , together with relevant ORG documents ( see Part C below ) .

NORP In their observations the Government submitted that the first applicant and her son PERSON had been detained on DATE on the basis of LAW of DATE ( no . DATE ) on measures aimed at prevention of vagrancy , and placed in the reception and identification centre ( приемник-распределитель ) in GPE , which had operated from DATE . The first applicant had remained there until DATE , when her identity had been established and she had been transferred to a hospital in view of the deterioration of her health . The Government submitted some documents relevant to the first applicant 's detention ( see Part B below ) .

As to the status of the GPE detention facility , in DATE the Government submitted that there were no documents available about the legal status of the institution prior to DATE , but that the premises of the former high - security wing of correctional facility IS-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( помещение бывшего штрафного изолятора исправительной колонии ИС-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) had been used as a reception and identification centre . According to the Government , on DATE the Minister of ORG had issued orders for a pre - trial detention centre ( “ GPE ” ) to be set up and for responsibility for the institution to be transferred to ORG of GPE .

At the same time the ORG submitted a copy of the order issued by the Minister of ORG on CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , by which responsibility for pre - trial detention centre IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE had been transferred from ORG of Kabardino - Balkaria to ORG of GPE . The institution was designated as “ IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” . Its capacity was established at CARDINAL persons . ( Documents issued by the pre - trial detention centre in DATE and DATE referred to it as “ IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” . )

The first applicant was transferred to the district hospital in GPE on DATE . According to the second applicant 's statement , her mother was unconscious and the doctors insisted that she should be taken to the hospital for intensive care . The first applicant submitted that in the hospital she had been guarded by the military for DATE .

The first applicant submitted that in DATE she had been visited in the hospital by ORG , who had told her that she had been cleared of charges .

The first applicant was issued with a certificate by the head of the PERSON , dated DATE , which stated that “ from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the criminal police of the PERSON investigated on the basis of incriminating materials [ the first applicant 's ] participation and involvement in illegal armed groups in GPE . No incriminating material was found . ”

The first applicant was discharged from the hospital on DATE . The second applicant submitted that she had remained very weak and spent DATE in bed . She had lost a significant amount of weight , and her arms and head had trembled .

The first applicant 's son , PERSON , was released from GPE on DATE . The second applicant submitted that he had likewise suffered beatings and ill - treatment while in detention . No medical documents were submitted to substantiate this .

Neither the first applicant nor her son PERSON was charged with any crime in relation to their detention .

The Government submitted that the first applicant had been admitted to ORG on DATE and diagnosed with “ bronchopneumonia on both sides and cardiac - type neurocirculatory dystonia with asthmatic syndrome ” . She had undergone a number of complex examinations , but no injuries or traces of beatings had been recorded . After release neither the first applicant nor her son had filed complaints with the prosecutor 's office about alleged ill - treatment while in detention .

The Government further stated that it was impossible to identify the persons who had worked at the reception and identification centre at the relevant time or to obtain copies of documents , in view of the absence of any archives . A check carried out by ORG resulted on DATE in a decision not to open a criminal investigation . Later this decision was reversed ( see Part B below ) .

The applicants submitted a number of ORG and media reports relating to the situation in GPE at the material time . In particular , they referred to a ORG report of DATE entitled “ Welcome to Hell : Arbitrary Detention , Torture and Extortion in GPE ” . The report contained a special section on the GPE detention centre in DATE and DATE based on interviews with former inmates . The report presented a picture of systematic abuse and ill - treatment of detainees , compounded with sordid conditions of detention . It called upon the NORP authorities to investigate fully the events in GPE in DATE to ensure prosecution of those responsible for the abuses and to grant compensation to the victims .

On DATE the ORG contacted ORG following a publication in ORG magazine about “ filtration points ” for persons whom the federal authorities had suspected of being linked to illegal armed groups . The article and accompanying pictures described the harsh conditions of detention at a filtration point in ORG , near ORG . It also spoke of abuse and ill - treatment in GPE . On DATE the prosecutor of LOC responded to PERSON , confirming that from DATE a “ filtration point ” had indeed been set up in the village of ORG . He stated that in the period in question CARDINAL persons had been detained there . Of these , CARDINAL persons had been charged with the offence of participating in illegal armed groups , detained on the basis of a prosecutor 's order and transferred to the GPE pre - trial detention centre ( GPE ) . All others had been released . The legality of their detention had been supervised by the relevant prosecutors and the detainees had been provided with sleeping facilities , food and medical assistance .

The second applicant submitted CARDINAL statements by witnesses to the events : her brother PERSON and CARDINAL neighbours , PERSON and PERSON According to these statements , on CARDINAL DATE the first applicant , her husband PERSON ( the second applicant 's father ) , their son PERSON ( the second applicant 's brother ) and the first applicant 's brother PERSON ( the second applicant 's uncle ) spent TIME at the first applicant 's house at CARDINAL Filatova Street in PERSON . The first applicant 's other son , PERSON , was sleeping in a separate house in the same courtyard , and his DATE son was in the house with the first applicant , his grandmother .

At TIME UAZ-CARDINAL cars without registration plates , equipped with large aerials , arrived at the house next door to the first applicant 's house . Several men entered the house very quietly , so the owner of the house , NORP , did not hear them enter . They woke NORP up and gagged her with adhesive tape . Then they demanded her passport . CARDINAL of them looked at the photograph and told the others in NORP “ This is not her ” . They then left , having warned the inhabitants to be quiet for TIME . They took the passport along with them . NORP later found her passport in the first applicant 's house .

The group arrived at the first applicant 's house at TIME Eleven persons entered the first applicant 's house ; a few others , armed with grenade - launchers and machine guns , gathered in the street around the house . They were all tall and well - built and were wearing camouflage which the witnesses identified as the uniform of the special forces . CARDINAL of them were masked ; others were wearing black helmets covering their necks and ears . The men who entered the house were armed with ORG guns . After TIME a neighbour heard CARDINAL sounds of muffled blows , which he at first mistook for knocking at the gates . He then realised it had been the sound of shooting .

I. , the first applicant 's son , testified that he had heard noise and a scream at the neighbours ' at TIME He thought that it was probably a special operation , something that happened regularly in the village . He dressed very quickly and looked outside . He noticed several men in camouflage and “ special forces helmets ” jumping into the courtyard across the fence . The witness guessed that they would not immediately break into the house and noted that they had first taken up combat positions around the door . He rushed into the room and covered his bed with a blanket , then hid behind an armchair . As soon as he did so , several men ran into the house and spread into the rooms . CARDINAL of them said “ There is no one here ” , and another one said “ Take the video ” . They spoke NORP and did not mention any names or ranks when addressing each other . In TIME they left , having taken the video player . The second applicant 's brother heard the dog barking and some noise outside . Then he heard CARDINAL shots being fired very rapidly . TIME he heard them shouting “ Come on , let 's leave , quick ” , and then the sound of the cars leaving .

The neighbours saw CARDINAL ORG cars leave towards the main road to Grozny .

I. waited TIME and went outside . He saw CARDINAL women in the street and was very surprised that his mother had not come out , because usually she was very active and intervened when someone had been detained in the village . He noticed that the door of his parents ' house was ajar and thought that his whole family had been taken away . When he entered the house he noticed his mother lying on the floor . A female neighbour entered and he gave her his DATE son , who was crying in his bed , and asked her to take him out .

He then returned to the room and turned on the light . He found the first applicant on the floor , lying on her back . Her mouth was covered with adhesive tape and her hands were bound together with the same tape . She had been shot in the face and in the hands . I. later counted CARDINAL bullet holes in the floor , from an ORG machine gun .

Then he went into the corridor and found the body of his uncle , PERSON . The neighbour PERSON submitted that there was a black hood with strings on his head , used by the military when they detained people . His hands and feet were taped together . He had been shot CARDINAL times in the back of his head . I. testified that his uncle had been sleeping that night in a separate house in the same courtyard and that the killers must have brought him to the first applicant 's house by force because the furniture in that house had been smashed .

In the living room they found the body of the first applicant 's husband , PERSON . He was lying on the floor near the sofa , and his hands and legs were taped together . He had been shot in the back of his head . A roll of adhesive tape was lying near his body . In the bedroom on the floor they found the body of the first applicant 's son , PERSON , with his hands taped behind his back and his legs taped together . He had also been shot CARDINAL times in the back of his head .

In TIME the villagers learnt that on TIME CARDINAL other men had been killed , apparently by the same group . ORG 's house at FAC had been raided at TIME ; his wife , who had opened the door , had been gagged and her hands and feet bound with tape . Once she had managed to free herself , she had found her husband 's body with bullet wounds to the head . At TIME the group had raided the house of GPE in FAC . His wife and mother had been bound up with adhesive tape and the owner of the house had been taken out by men identified by the witnesses as “ military ” . PERSON 's body , with his hands bound in front of the body with adhesive tape , was found by his relatives TIME in the vegetable patch at the house with CARDINAL bullet holes in the head and shoulder .

Once I. discovered the bodies he ran into the courtyard screaming for help . In response to his cries neighbours came and CARDINAL of them went to call the local police . The police came in the morning , TIME . At TIME scene of crime experts arrived from the district 's administrative centre in GPE , photographed the bodies and collected the cartridges .

On DATE the relatives washed and buried the bodies . The second applicant submitted that the experts had not asked them to postpone the burials or to allow an autopsy .

The witnesses submitted that some villagers had asked the military at the roadblocks surrounding the village who had come that night and why they had been allowed to pass through to PERSON and back . They were apparently told that this had been a military group with a “ special mission ” permit . They also alleged that similar information had been given to the local police and that was why they had not interfered .

On DATE ORG opened criminal investigation no . DATE under Article CARDINAL , part CARDINAL ( a ) and ( g ) , of LAW ( killing of CARDINAL or more persons with aggravating circumstances ) .

On DATE the NGO Memorial issued a press release entitled “ Political Crime in Kalinovskaya ” . It reported the killing of the first applicant and her family and linked it to the first applicant 's complaint to ORG . It also referred to the pending criminal proceedings against the first applicant 's brother and son , PERSON and PERSON , for possession of illegal drugs for non - commercial purposes . The document reported that the first applicant had insisted that the proceedings had been contrived in retribution for her active position in relation to the crimes committed by the military , including a request to investigate a mass burial discovered in LOC in DATE .

On DATE the ORG , acting under LAW , informed ORG about the application lodged by the first applicant and about her killing and that of her family members , on the basis of information received from the applicants ' representatives .

On DATE Memorial contacted the Prosecutor General with an inquiry about the killings in PERSON . In DATE ORG replied that their letter had been forwarded to ORG .

In DATE the second applicant contacted ORG with a request to grant her victim status in criminal case no . DATE . She received no answer to this letter .

The Government in their observations submitted additional information about the investigation into the killings . According to them , on CARDINAL DATE the investigators examined the site of the crime and collected evidence . The relatives of the deceased refused to submit the bodies for forensic examination . In view of that , the forensic experts ' reports had been carried out on the basis of medical documents . They confirmed the presence of gunshot wounds , which had caused the deaths . A ballistic expert report was also carried out .

According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE the investigation questioned CARDINAL relatives and neighbours of the persons who had been killed . They also questioned CARDINAL servicemen of the law - enforcement bodies . In DATE the investigation questioned ORG and the first applicant 's brother PERSON , who were both granted victim status . Additional questioning of the witnesses and victims took place in DATE . In DATE and DATE the investigation questioned and granted victim status to the relatives of ORG and FAC The second applicant had never applied to the prosecutors in relation to the killings of her family members . Thus , a decision to grant her victim status was only taken on DATE , but it was not announced to her , in view of her absence from her place of residence .

According to the ORG , the investigation established that on CARDINAL DATE between CARDINAL and TIME a group of unidentified men wearing camouflage and masks and armed with automatic weapons had entered QUANTITY houses in the village of PERSON and killed CARDINAL persons , including the first applicant and CARDINAL members of her family . The identities of the perpetrators were not established . The involvement of the special forces was not confirmed by the investigation . According to the information supplied by ORG ( ORG ) , no servicemen of the ORG had been involved on DATE in any operations in LOC . The investigation reviewed the log records of the vehicles belonging to the military units stationed in the district , which indicated that no vehicles had left their location on that night . ORG also denied that they had carried out any operations in the district .

The investigation of criminal case no . DATE was adjourned and reopened on several occasions . It failed to identify the perpetrators of the crimes . Following a request from ORG , the ORG submitted a number of documents from the criminal investigation file in case no . MONEY ( see below ) .

The second applicant submitted that she and her brother PERSON had been threatened and harassed by the military and law - enforcement bodies after the killing of the first applicant and her family . She submitted that DATE after the killings her brother had been detained by the military for some time , and that while in detention he had been beaten and ill - treated . Soon afterwards he had left without any notice and she had no information as to his whereabouts .

She also submitted that on an unspecified date in DATE her aunt ( the first applicant 's sister ) had been visited in ORG by officers of ORG , who had told her that they were looking for the second applicant . The woman told them that she did not know where the second applicant lived , because the latter had no permanent address . The prosecutors asked the second applicant 's aunt questions about the complaint to the ORG , who had applied and why the prosecutor 's office had not been informed of this complaint . The second applicant submitted that her aunt had not been aware of the complaint and had replied that they had never applied to the ORG . The prosecutors had asked her to sign some papers without disclosing their contents , or blank papers , but she had refused .

The second applicant also submitted that on CARDINAL May CARDINAL , while in the village of PERSON , she had been approached by a local policeman , an officer of ORG and their CARDINAL guards . They had demanded that the applicant produce her internal passport and had taken it away . They had then asked her if she was aware of LAW ( illegal possession of arms ) , where she kept her weapons , what she was doing in PERSON and in PERSON and what the price of arms was . The second applicant replied that she had nothing to do with weapons and that she did not have any . The second applicant submitted that when they had noticed her relative , a member of the security service , they had returned the passport to her , had said that they “ just wanted to talk ” and had left .

The second applicant submitted that her husband had divorced her because he and his relatives were afraid that they could have problems being associated with her . She felt intimidated and feared for her safety , security and life .

On DATE the ORG , acting under LAW , requested ORG to take all measures to ensure that there was no hindrance in any way of the effective exercise of the second applicant 's right of individual petition as provided by LAW . This measure was lifted on DATE .

The Government submitted that in response to the second applicant 's complaint about intimidation , ORG had carried out an inquiry . The office had refused to open criminal proceedings , but later this decision had been reversed by ORG . Following a request from ORG , the ORG submitted a number of documents relevant to these proceedings ( see Part B below ) .

The second applicant submitted that on DATE and on DATE investigators from ORG had questioned her and obtained written explanations about the alleged intimidation . In DATE questioning had taken place at ORG and in DATE the investigator had visited her while she was working in a hospital in PERSON .

The second applicant submitted to the ORG her own statement and a copy of the “ explanation ” obtained on DATE . She submitted that the investigator had assured her that she would be protected from further threats and that no one would bother her in the future . The applicant stated , however , that the questioning had concerned not only the incidents of harassment , but also some details about her complaint to the ORG and about her lawyer . The investigator had warned her that she should submit correct information , otherwise she could be prosecuted for giving false statements . The second applicant submitted that the questioning had been an intimidating experience , because of the nature of the questions , because she had been pregnant at the time and had to take care of her DATE child and because her elderly relatives , who were present , had not been happy to learn that she had applied to GPE , fearing for their lives and safety . The applicant also referred to the poor security situation overall , when any contact with representatives of the law - enforcement bodies was perceived by her and her family as a threat .

Following the decision on admissibility , the ORG requested the ORG to submit copies of a number of documents . In particular , the ORG were requested to submit documents concerning the investigation into the first applicant 's complaints of ill - treatment , documents specifying the legal status of the detention centre in GPE during the relevant period and documents relating to the first applicant 's medical complaints and condition . The ORG also requested the ORG to submit a copy of the file on the criminal investigation opened into the murder of the first applicant and documents relating to the inquiry into the second applicant 's allegations of harassment . In response , the ORG submitted CARDINAL pages of relevant material . The ORG stated that the submission of other related documents was impossible because they contained information about the location and actions of the military and special units and personal information about the participants in the proceedings . They referred to LAW ORG ) .

DATE . The relevant documents are summarised below .

In DATE the temporary isolation facility of ORG of the ORG ( ROVD ) informed the investigator from ORG that the first applicant had not been detained there DATE .

On an unspecified date the head of GPE ( IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) informed ORG that the first applicant had been detained there DATE and DATE . On the latter date she had been transferred to the district hospital in GPE . The letter further informed the prosecutor that no copies of the criminal investigation file or of the personal file on the first applicant had been preserved , with the exception of the entry cards . Another document issued by the same officer in DATE stated that it was impossible to find out any details about the first applicant 's detention because no proper records had been kept at the relevant time . It further stated that DATE the facility had been guarded by military servicemen on assignment from other regions and that it was impossible to identify them . From DATE the institution had come under the authority of ORG of Kabardino - Balkaria and had been manned by its staff . After DATE the detention facility had operated under the authority of ORG of GPE .

In DATE ORG of GPE issued a note to the effect that it had no information as to the operation of a reception and identification centre in GPE or whether it had ever been under the authority of ORG of Kabardino - Balkaria .

The Government also submitted copies of log entries for the first applicant and for her son PERSON . The first applicant 's card contained information about her name , date and place of birth and place of residence . It stated that she had entered GPE on DATE and that on DATE she had been transferred to hospital . The entry for PERSON also contained personal information , and stated that on DATE he had been “ checked and released ” .

The Government submitted a number of documents relating to the first applicant 's treatment at FAC . In so far as they are legible , the documents confirm that on DATE the first applicant was delivered by ambulance from the “ detention facility ” in a grave condition and diagnosed with acute bronchopneumonia on both sides , heart failure , stenocardia , exacerbations of chronic cholecystitis and pyelonephritis on both sides . The records state that the first applicant had fallen ill DATE previously as a result of hypothermia . She was treated at the hospital until DATE .

From the documents submitted by the Government it also appears that in DATE ORG Office carried out an inquiry into the first applicant 's ill - treatment while in detention . The inquiry was prompted by an ORG report about the persecution of human - rights activists in GPE . The documents referred to the records kept in GPE , according to which on DATE the first applicant had been diagnosed with and treated for tracheobronchitis and cholecystitis . She had again sought medical assistance on DATE , when her pulse and blood pressure had been taken . On DATE the investigator stated that no other records were available and ruled that no criminal investigation should be opened on account of the absence of corpus delicti . In DATE a supervising prosecutor quashed that ruling and ordered a further inquiry .

On DATE a prosecutor of ORG opened a criminal investigation into the murders of ORG , GPE , the first applicant and her CARDINAL family members in the village of PERSON “ by unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with automatic weapons ” . The order referred to the types of weapons used : a PM pistol and PERSON sub - machine guns of CARDINAL PERSON and QUANTITY calibre . The case file was registered as no . DATE . On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE set up an investigative group of CARDINAL officers from the prosecutor 's offices of LOC and PERSON , and from the military prosecutor 's offices and ORG .

DATE . On DATE I. , the first applicant 's son , was granted victim status in the proceedings . On DATE , the first applicant 's brother , was also granted victim status . In DATE the relatives of ORG were granted victim status in the proceedings . In DATE relatives of ORG were recognised as victims .

On DATE the investigating body issued orders to grant victim status to the second applicant . They were forwarded to her place of residence in PERSON by mail , and were not countersigned by her .

The documents submitted by the Government include a number of prosecutors ' orders to extend the term of the investigation , and to adjourn and reopen the proceedings . These orders mention some investigative steps , such as information requests , forensic and fingerprint experts ' reports , and the records of the questioning of witnesses and victims . They also refer to a certain “ directive of ORG ” ( “ директива GPE ) . The Government did not submit copies of these documents and no further details of these measures have been made available to the ORG .

DATE and DATE the investigation was adjourned CARDINAL times owing to the failure to identify the culprits . Each time it was reopened by a supervising prosecutor on the ground that the investigation had not been carried out in full . The last order to reopen the proceedings is dated DATE .

The persons who had been granted victim status were informed of the decisions to adjourn and reopen the investigation .

NORP In DATE an investigator from ORG ordered an inquiry into these allegations further to information provided by ORG at the ORG .

The investigators questioned the second applicant , the local policeman , an officer of ORG , guards and the second applicant 's relatives . They confirmed that in DATE there had been a passport check in PERSON , during which the second applicant had been asked questions about the presence of illegal items , including weapons , in her house . The witnesses stated that the second applicant had not been subjected to any threats or pressure . The documents also confirm that after the prosecutor 's office had been instructed to investigate the complaint of harassment , a number of questions put to the second applicant and her relatives concerned her application to the ORG . The second applicant stated that she had not received any threats after applying to the ORG .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL orders not to open a criminal investigation into the second applicant 's complaints of harassment were issued , each time being quashed by the supervising prosecutor . The last document issued on DATE by the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE ordered the investigators from that office to carry out an additional inquiry and to question the second applicant '

The detention centre in GPE , where the first applicant was detained , received extensive attention from various human - rights institutions , including ORG for ORG ( ORG ) , following allegations of severe ill - treatment of detainees . On DATE the head of the ORG delegation , Mr GPE , issued a statement to the NORP officials at the end of the visit to the NORP region of GPE . The statement said , inter alia , in relation to the visit to PERSON :

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

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

“ I. The information gathered by the ORG during its visits to the NORP region in DATE and in DATE strongly indicated that many persons were physically ill - treated in a detention facility at GPE during DATE to DATE . Ever since DATE , the ORG has been urging the NORP authorities to carry out a thorough and independent inquiry into events at this detention facility during that period . To date , an inquiry of the kind requested by the ORG has not been carried out and the NORP authorities have now made it clear that they have no intention of organising such an inquiry . A particularly disturbing aspect of the NORP authorities ' current position is their contention that no facilities intended for accommodating detainees were established by public authorities in the area of GPE during the period referred to by the ORG .

It is an indisputable fact that a detention facility operated at GPE during DATE to DATE , prior to the formal setting up in that village of a pre - trial establishment ( GPE no . CARDINAL ) by a Ministry of Justice Order dated DATE . The ORG 's delegation interviewed many persons who stated that they had been held in a detention facility at GPE during that period . Numerous NORP officials ( prosecutors , investigators , custodial staff ) met by the delegation confirmed that the establishment designated as from DATE as ORG no . CARDINAL had prior to that date been used as a detention facility . The ORG is in possession of a copy of the medical journal of the establishment covering DATE to CARDINAL DATE , in which DATE by day arrival of detainees ( and any injuries they bore ) was recorded ; the staff who completed that journal referred to the establishment first as an ' ORG ' ( temporary detention facility ) and at a later stage as a ' temporary reception and distribution centre ' . The NORP authorities have themselves , in earlier correspondence , provided to the ORG written statements signed by officers attesting to the fact that they worked in the detention facility during DATE to DATE as well as written statements signed by persons who certified that they were held at GPE during that period .

The NORP authorities ' contention that no detention facilities were established by public authorities at GPE during the period in question ( and that , as a result , an inquiry of the kind requested can serve no purpose ) is clearly untenable and constitutes a failure to cooperate with the ORG . ”

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

Presidential Decree no . DATE of DATE on measures aimed at prevention of vagrancy and begging provided for the reorganisation of the system of “ reception and distribution centres ” for persons detained by the bodies of ORG for vagrancy and begging into centres of social rehabilitation for such persons . Under the Decree , persons could be placed in such centres on the order of a prosecutor for a period of DATE .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CCP ) prohibits the disclosure of information from the preliminary investigation file . Under part CARDINAL of the LAW , information from the investigation file may be divulged only with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings or prejudice the investigation . Divulging information about the private lives of participants in criminal proceedings without their permission is prohibited .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

NORP In DATE ORG authorised a private limited company ( “ the Company ” ) to issue payment cards to its customers . After DATE , however , purchase with such cards was no longer possible . Despite this fact , in DATE the applicants concluded agreements with the Company for so - called “ savings cards ” in which they invested various amounts of money .

NORP In DATE bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the Company and its insolvency was established in DATE . The applicants recovered part of their investments through partial reimbursement by the Company . They sold their remaining claims against the ORG to third parties .

On DATE CARDINAL private individuals , including the applicants , who were all represented by CARDINAL law firm , brought an official liability action against ORG before ORG . They claimed that the respondent had not exercised its supervisory duties over the Company , therefore making it possible for the applicants to conclude the above - mentioned agreements which had resulted in substantial losses .

On DATE ORG dismissed their action , finding that the respondent had no duty of supervision according to the relevant domestic legislation .

On DATE ORG , acting as a second - instance court , quashed ORG decision and remitted the case to the first instance court due to the incomplete findings of fact .

In the resumed proceedings ORG found for the applicants on DATE . It established that the ORG had unlawfully overstepped the boundaries of its activities , which had been known to the respondent ; nevertheless , the latter could not prove that it had fulfilled its supervisory duties in this respect .

On DATE ORG dismissed their appeal . It acknowledged that there were omissions on the respondent ’s side . However , since the applicants had already sold their claims to third parties , the court held that they could have no substantive claims whatsoever in the circumstances .

The applicants lodged a petition for review with ORG . It upheld ORG decision on DATE , finding that the latter decision had been in compliance with the law .


CASE OF MURTIĆ AND ĆERIMOVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

David Thór Björgvinsson;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .

They were both employed by ORG ( “ the company ” ) , an agricultural company based in PERSON . In DATE the workers’ council of the company adopted a decision on the issuance of internal shares to the company ’s employees as part of its reorganisation from a socially owned company into a joint - stock company under the applicable regulations . It was decided that CARDINAL of the employees’ salaries would be allocated towards instalment payments for the internal shares to be issued to them . On DATE the company ’s management board issued a series of resolutions authorising retention of earnings that resulted in an increase in the company ’s internal share capital . As a result of these board resolutions , the internal share capital amounted to PERCENT of the company ’s total share capital ( the remainder being held by the ORG ) . The reorganisation process continued until DATE , when the management of the company was taken over by the ORG following armed conflict in the north - western part of GPE ( where PERSON is located ) during the DATE - CARDINAL war . Following the ORG taking control of the company , the applicants were effectively unable to exercise any of their rights as shareholders , although the company continued to state the privately - held internal share capital allotted to its employees on its DATE balance sheets , as well as the ORG - owned capital , until DATE .

On DATE the applicants’ employment was suspended , as well as that of many other employees of the company , and they were placed on a waiting list for potential future employment by the new management of the company . However , they were never subsequently offered the opportunity to resume their employment .

On DATE the applicants complained to ORG ( a domestic human - rights body set up under Annex DATE LAW ) in CARDINAL separate appeals .

On DATE , ORG , an auditing and consulting company based in GPE , conducted an audit of the transfer of ownership of the company . It held that the measures taken from DATE until DATE to establish internal share capital had not been in accordance with the law and that , therefore , such internal share capital had never been formed . Consequently , it concluded that the company was PERCENT ORG - owned .

On DATE ORG issued a decree placing the company on the list of the companies under its control on the basis of the ORG - owned capital .

On DATE ORG joined the applicants’ cases ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and those of Mr PERSON and ORG of ORG and adopted a single decision . It was delivered on DATE . ORG held that the applicants had acquired possessions , in the form of their paid - up internal shares in the company , which were protected by law and found a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .

The reasons were set out in the decision , the relevant paragraphs of which read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In summary , the ORG has concluded that the applicants acquired protected “ possessions ” in their paid internal shares in ORG for which payment was made on the basis of : ( a ) permanent deposits ; ( b ) allocation of parts of salaries , either on DATE basis during DATE , or on an DATE basis for DATE ; and ( c ) distribution of profits for DATE in proportion to the amount of paid internal shares . The decision on the results of the renewed ORG audit of DATE , which cancelled all internal shares in favour of state capital in ORG , deprived the applicants of these protected possessions . In addition , by exercising effective exclusive control over the management of ORG , the authorities of the Federation further interfered with the rights of the applicants to participate in the management and to share in the profits of ORG in relation to their paid internal shares . In these respects ORG did not act “ subject to the conditions provided by law ” . Consequently , the ORG concludes that the GPE has violated the rights of the applicants protected by LAW .

The applicants are correct that they have had no real and effective means to participate in the establishment of the ownership structure of ORG , as that has been established through the performance of the audit , which was conducted exclusively by the auditor PERSON [ ... ] . There have been no actual or effective proceedings in which the applicants have been invited to participate . Under the law , the only way for the applicants to participate in the establishment of the ownership structure of the company in which they are shareholders has been to challenge the appointment of the auditor and to challenge the results of the audit [ ... ] . This has not proven effective in this case . Moreover , the ORG considers that this type of process has not been adequate properly to allow the applicants to have access to courts for the determination of their civil rights , as guaranteed by LAW .

Furthermore , ORG ordered ORG to take all necessary steps to recognise the applicants as holders of internal shares in relation to the amount of their paid - up internal shares and to enable them to exercise their right as shareholders to participate in the management of the company . In particular , the Federation was ordered to : ( i ) employ , at its own expense , internationally recognised auditors to undertake an audit to determine the complete ownership structure of the company , in compliance with ORG ; ( ii ) establish the value of the ORG shares and have them formally registered ; and ( iii ) provide them with individual share certificates . Lastly , ORG ordered interim measures whereby certain procedures and arrangements were put in place as regards the company ’s management until the adoption of the final audit report and the convocation of a general meeting of the company ’s shareholders .

On DATE the GPE branch of ORG produced an audit report , which found that PERCENT of the company ’s capital was ORG - owned , the remaining PERCENT being in private ownership . In addition , PERCENT of the total capital had been assigned to individual private shareholders , whilst the outstanding PERCENT remained unassigned . The value of the ORG shares had not been established . Consequently , they could not attend the general meeting of the company ’s shareholders which was to be held on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( the legal successor of ORG ) decided to lift the interim measures indicated in the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , after having received the final report on the completed audit from ORG and a signed copy of TIME first general meeting of the company ’s shareholders .

On DATE the ORG registered the changes in the ownership of the company resulting from its reorganisation .

On DATE a general meeting of the company ’s shareholders adopted a resolution authorising the distribution of the unassigned private share capital to individual shareholders ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicants were issued with individual share certificates and their shares were formally registered with ORG . It was established that the first applicant was entitled to CARDINAL shares with a market value of CARDINAL convertible marks ( BAM ) and the second applicant to CARDINAL shares with a market value of BAM CARDINAL . Consequently , the applicants were also allowed to attend general meetings of the company ’s shareholders .

On DATE the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina ( which became responsible for the supervision of the execution of ORG decisions after ORG ceased to exist ) concluded that ORG decision of DATE had been fully implemented .

In accordance with LAW ( ORG GPE , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , non - enforcement of a decision of ORG is a criminal offence :

“ An official of the ORG , the ORG or the Brčko District who refuses to enforce a final and enforceable decision of ORG , ORG , ORG or ORG , or who prevents the enforcement of any such decision , or who frustrates the enforcement of any such decision in some other way , shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of DATE . ”


Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a life sentence in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in the LOC police station of GPE on suspicion of murder .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE police temporary detention centre ( the “ ORG ” ) .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE no . CARDINAL pre - trial detention centre ( “ the GPE ” ) and on the same date placed in ORG for in - patient psychiatric assessment .

On DATE the applicant was transferred back to the GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment and it became final .

NORP In DATE the applicant was transferred to LOC no . CARDINAL Penitentiary , GPE ( “ Penitentiary no . CARDINAL ” ) .

In DATE the applicant was transferred to Kherson no . CARDINAL Penitentiary ( “ Penitentiary no . CARDINAL ) and placed in the prison hospital .

In DATE ( prior to his detention ) the applicant was diagnosed with infiltrated tuberculosis of the lung . In DATE he was also diagnosed with late stage of HIV ( Aids ) .

According to the applicant , throughout DATE the medical assistance afforded to him on account of his HIV and tuberculosis was grossly inadequate , while the physical arrangements of his detention were incompatible with his state of health .

NORP In particular , as regards HIV , no treatment was offered whatsoever . Furthermore , in spite of the doctors ' recommendations and the applicant 's numerous requests , throughout the period of his detention he was denied blood tests to establish his count of CD-CARDINAL immunity cells , which are instrumental in combating tuberculosis and possibly inhibited as a result of HIV . On several occasions the applicant was informed that antiretroviral therapy would become available to him after the successful treatment of his tuberculosis .

As regards the treatment for tuberculosis , it was irregular and insufficient . In particular , in spite of the applicant 's numerous complaints about his state of health ( namely , shortness of breath , fever , chest pain , and so on ) , no medical assistance whatsoever was provided to him DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of the GPE medical officers , who found that he was at risk of death if his state of health was not promptly addressed and recommended his release in view of the fact that the GPE lacked the necessary facilities for his treatment . The applicant submitted a copy of the letter from the medical panel addressed to the GPE governor and a letter from the governor to the district court dated DATE requesting his release on humanitarian grounds . It is not clear whether these letters generated any reaction from the court . The applicant , however , remained in detention .

NORP Since DATE the applicant has been receiving treatment for tuberculosis , but it has not been effective . On many occasions he was denied routine consultations in spite of his demands . However , even when he was able to obtain consultations , the recommendations of the doctors were not followed through effectively . For example , on DATE the applicant consulted a panel of medical specialists and was advised to undergo a number of tests . However , these tests were not carried out because the necessary facilities were unavailable , with the exception of CARDINAL blood tests ( biochemical and general ) carried out in DATE . The applicant was likewise unable to obtain timely tests on a number of other ( unspecified ) occasions in spite of his demands .

The applicant 's recovery from tuberculosis was further impeded by the physical conditions of his detention . In all of the facilities in which he was detained , the applicant was largely confined to his cell . In the ORG he had to sleep on a bare mattress , as no linen was provided . Furthermore , he had no opportunity to wash , shave or take outdoor exercise . In Penitentiary no . CARDINAL the cells had no mirrors or drawers and were poorly heated . The air was so damp that the walls and ceilings were covered with fungi and mould , as well as frost during DATE . The drinking water was rusty and hot water for washing was not available more than once DATE . Despite suffering from active tuberculosis , on some occasions the applicant had to share a cell with other prisoners , including those who were healthy , which provoked conflicts . As a result of the lack of treatment and the inadequate conditions of his detention , the applicant caught bronchitis and pneumonia on various occasions , while his tuberculosis spread further and became chronic .

By way of evidence , the applicant presented a statement by his cellmate , PERSON According to him , he shared the applicant 's cell on various occasions for periods lasting from DATE to DATE . Their cell was very cold and no adequate clothing was provided . On numerous occasions the applicant 's requests for medical assistance were ignored and the actual administration of anti - tuberculosis drugs was irregular , provoking the aggravation of his condition and resistance of the bacteria to treatment .

On numerous occasions the applicant complained to various authorities , including the ombudsman , ORG and the local ORG , of the inadequacy of his medical assistance and the incompatibility of the conditions of his detention with his state of health . His complaints , however , were to no avail .

On CARDINAL occasions the applicant attempted to lodge complaints about the conditions of his detention with CARDINAL different courts ; however , his submissions were rejected with reference to a lack of territorial jurisdiction . At CARDINAL time the applicant demanded that a court clerk be commissioned to assist him in drafting his submissions , but this request was refused as not based on law . The applicant never appealed against the court decisions not to examine his claims .

In DATE , following the applicant 's numerous complaints to the prosecutor 's office , ORG contacted the Chief of ORG for ORG and the governor of Penitentiary no . CARDINAL , urging them to take urgent measures to ensure that the applicant receive a comprehensive medical examination . Following this intervention , in DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL ORG . However , following the applicant 's transfer , healthcare arrangements did not improve significantly . In particular , no HIV therapy was made available to him .

The Government presented extensive handwritten medical notes , which are hardly legible , and a typed synopsis of the applicant 's treatment history , on the basis of which they alleged that the applicant was regularly and consistently supervised and received treatment in compliance with the applicable ORG guidelines .

According to the synopsis , on DATE the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and diagnosed as suffering from focal tuberculosis of the upper part of the right lung in the consolidation stage .

On DATE the applicant was x - rayed . His x - ray indicated small low - intensity foci of the tuberculosis infection in the upper part of the right lung . Following this test , the applicant was prescribed standard treatment of a combination of “ first - line ” anti - tuberculosis antibiotics ( streptomycin , isoniazid , rifampicin , ethambutol and pyrazinamide ) and vitamins .

The applicant was further examined by a tuberculosis specialist and ( or ) x - rayed in DATE ( infiltrating tuberculosis ; same treatment continued ) ; DATE ( diffusion and consolidation of the infection – positive dynamics ) ; DATE and DATE ( disseminated tuberculosis of the upper parts of both lungs , diffusion and consolidation stage ) ; DATE ( positive dynamics : namely , large remaining modifications after the tuberculosis infection – anti - recurrence treatment with “ first - line ” antibiotics and diet prescribed ) ; DATE ( same as before ) ; DATE and DATE ( recurrence of the tuberculosis infection in both lungs , including tissue destruction ) ; DATE and DATE ( recurrent tuberculosis , consolidation stage ( positive dynamics ) , same treatment ) ; DATE and DATE ( same diagnosis including tissue destruction ; same treatment ) ; DATE ( chronic tuberculosis including pulmonary fibrosis , numerous polymorphous foci of various sizes and numerous tuberculomas ) ; DATE ( results unspecified ) ; DATE ( the number of foci increased in both lungs ) ; DATE ( slight diffusion and consolidation of the infection foci ( positive dynamics ) ) .

The synopsis further gives a detailed account of the numerous tests carried out of the applicant 's blood , urine and sputum DATE and a record of a drug - resistance test taken in DATE . Following the test for drug resistance , it was established that the applicant was resistant to some of the “ first - line ” anti - tuberculosis medication and his treatment regime was supplemented with some “ second - line ” drugs .

In addition , in DATE and DATE the applicant received anti - inflammatory treatment on account of pneumonia in DATE and was treated for bronchitis in DATE . In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with chronic bronchitis and hepatitis .

In the light of the positive tuberculosis dynamics , the applicant began preparing for HIV therapy at DATE .

According to the applicant , immediately upon his and CARDINAL other convicts ' arrival at Penitentiary no . CARDINAL in DATE , they had their heads covered with sacks , were forced onto their knees , handcuffed and beaten by unnamed junior officers for no reason . Furthermore , they were threatened with a dog , strip searched , and then forced to do sit - ups which were counted . Subsequently , on numerous occasions the officers continued to humiliate the applicant and create a stressful atmosphere . In particular , on numerous occasions they beat him , threatened him with a dog , knocked on the door with a stick for no reason , interrupted his sleep , opened the door to the cell suddenly for various checks , and verbally insulted him . During the TIME the applicant was forbidden to lie on the bed . Furthermore , when the applicant needed to leave the building , for instance for fluorography , his head was covered with a sack and he was made to walk in an unnatural position ( “ a duck”- legs bent with hands behind the head ) . On DATE the applicant was beaten for lying on his bed during the daytime when ill and on DATE for refusing to assume the “ duck ” walking position . Each day the applicant was handcuffed and body - searched , being forced to stand barefoot on the concrete floor while the officers searched his shoes .

The applicant presented a handwritten statement of claim dated DATE referring to the above conduct of the prison officers and addressed to ORG of Kyiv . However , he did not provide any evidence that this statement was received by the court or even despatched from the penitentiary .

According to the Government , none of the incidents mentioned above concerning the applicant 's ill - treatment at the hands of the penitentiary officers ever took place .

DATE Ukraine , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Human and citizens ' rights and freedoms are protected by the courts .

Everyone is guaranteed the right to challenge in court the decisions , actions or omissions of bodies of ORG power , bodies of local self - government , officials and officers . ...

Everyone has the right to protect his or her rights and freedoms from violations and illegal encroachments by any means not prohibited by law . ”

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code ( Chapter CARDINAL-A ) provided in so far as relevant :

“ Every citizen has the right to apply to court ... with an application , should he consider that a decision , action or inactivity of a public authority , legal person or official during the exercise of their administrative functions has violated his rights or freedoms ... ”

DATE Code , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The task of the administrative justice system is the protection of the rights , freedoms and interests of physical persons , and the rights and interests of legal entities in the field of public law relations from violations by public authorities ...

Any decisions , actions or inactivity of public authorities can be appealed against in administrative courts , except for cases in which the LAW and laws of GPE foresee a different procedure of judicial appeal against such decisions , actions or inactivity ... ”

According to paragraph CARDINAL of the Order , depending on the stage of the disease , HIV sufferers should have their count of CD-CARDINAL cells tested every one to six months .

According to paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG , approved by the LAW , medical assistance for HIV sufferers is viewed as comprising compulsory dispensary supervision , treatment of opportunistic diseases and access to antiretroviral therapy . In - patient treatment of patients with stage III - IV HIV suffering from active tuberculosis infections should be administered in prison hospitals specialising in the treatment of tuberculosis .

According to paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW , tuberculosis treatment was to be administered in specialised anti - tuberculosis institutions and to consist of CARDINAL phases : basic chemotherapy and rehabilitation . The basic chemotherapy course consisted of intensive and supportive treatment stages with “ first - line ” anti - tuberculosis antibiotics ( streptomycin , isoniazid , rifampicin , ethambutol and pyrazinamide ) , or , in the event of resistance of the infection to the above drugs , with “ second - line ” or “ reserve ” antibiotics .

According to paragraph CARDINAL , to obtain maximal results , medical or surgical treatment was to be implemented in conjunction with a particular hygiene and exercise regime ( complete bed rest , part - time bed rest or training regime ) prescribed to an individual patient based on an assessment of his condition .

Treatment was to be followed by rehabilitation , including curative exercise , massage and physiotherapy , which was recommended to be started within CARDINAL to DATE after the antibiotic treatment .

According to paragraph CARDINAL , within DATE of starting treatment , a medical commission was to examine whether the intensive treatment stage could be substituted by the supportive stage based on x - ray and microbiological tests . If treatment appeared ineffective at this stage the patient was to be tested for drug resistance , and , if necessary , his case referred to a more qualified institution . In the event that chemical treatment remained ineffective , surgical intervention was to be explored as a possible alternative .

According to paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , it was recommended that antibiotic treatment be supplemented with anti - pathogenic medicines .

According to paragraph CARDINAL , tuberculosis patients were to be continuously monitored , which included x - rays DATE ; blood ( general and biochemical ) and urine tests DATE during the intensive therapy stage and once DATE during the supportive stage .

On DATE Order no.CARDINAL was replaced with the Order no . CARDINAL approving an updated LAW ; however , the major approaches remained the same .

According to the LAW , patients co - infected with HIV and tuberculosis should predominantly be administered anti - tuberculosis therapy first , based on the same principles as for patients suffering from tuberculosis only . Under the general rule , antiretroviral therapy should be administered after the completion of the intensive anti - tuberculosis therapy stage , unless the level of CD-CARDINAL immunity cells is lower than a certain threshold , in which case antiretroviral therapy is administered immediately . On average , the level of CD-CARDINAL cells is expected to be tested once DATE .

Relevant parts of ORG report on its visit to GPE in DATE read as follows :

Access to medical care in specialised facilities remains problematic for this category of prisoner , both male and female ...

Further , the transfer of life - sentenced prisoners suffering from tuberculosis to specialised medical penitentiary facilities was still not possible . Such persons were kept in their detention units , isolated in their cells , sometimes for DATE .

The ORG recalls that obliging prisoners to stay in an establishment where they can not receive appropriate treatment due to a lack of suitable facilities or because such facilities refuse to admit them , is an unacceptable state of affairs which could amount to inhuman and degrading treatment .

The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities ensure that life sentenced prisoners DATE men and women – who require treatment in a specialised hospital facility can be transferred to such a facility without undue delay . ”

Other relevant domestic and international materials can be found in the judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) , PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

András Sajó;David Thór Björgvinsson;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

He is a professor of history who researches and publishes extensively on the subject of the historical events of DATE concerning the NORP population in GPE .

On DATE the applicant published an editorial opinion in AGOS , a bilingual NORP - Armenian newspaper , entitled “ PERSON , CARDINAL ” . In this editorial opinion the applicant criticised the prosecution of PERSON , the late editor of AGOS , for the crime of “ denigrating GPE ” under LAW . He also requested , in an expression of solidarity , to be prosecuted on the same ground for his opinions on the NORP issue .

On DATE a complaint was lodged against the applicant with the Eyüp public prosecutor . The complainant , PERSON , alleged that the applicant ’s defence of PERSON in the editorial published in AGOS violated ORG , CARDINAL ( incitement to commit an offence ) , CARDINAL ( praising a crime and a criminal ) and CARDINAL ( incitement to hatred and hostility among the people ) of LAW . Following this complaint , the applicant was summoned to the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office to make a statement . He was informed that he would be brought to the public prosecutor ’s office by force , in accordance with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , if he did not comply with the summons .

On DATE the applicant went to the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office to submit his defence statement in relation to the criminal complaint against him . The applicant stated , in the presence of his CARDINAL lawyers , that he had indeed written the said article published in AGOS . He explained that the policy of the Ittihad ve GPE towards the NORP in DATE could well be defined as genocide within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of ORG of DATE . He had written the said article in order to express his opinion on the NORP issue in the context of freedom of the press . He pointed out that he was a professor of history who had been working on this subject for DATE and that he had expressed his opinion several times in his books and articles . He had not written the impugned article in order to serve any association , organisation , race or ethnic group , or to denigrate a nation . The applicant ’s CARDINAL lawyers also argued that the applicant ’s statements did not amount to a crime .

On DATE the investigation against the applicant was terminated by the PERSON public prosecutor , who noted that at all the scientific seminars he had taken part in and in his publications the applicant had expressed the opinion that the events that took place DATE could be described as genocide . Having examined the applicant ’s article published in AGOS , the public prosecutor concluded that the applicant ’s statements in his capacity as a professor of history came within the realm of protected expression under LAW and that as such they did not constitute denigration of GPE . Nor did they amount to incitement to commit a crime , or to praising a crime or criminal , or incitement to hatred and enmity amongst the people .

On DATE the complainant , PERSON , filed an objection against the above - mentioned decision of non - prosecution .

On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the complainant ’s objection . Having examined the investigation carried out and the reasons given by the PERSON public prosecutor , the court held that the decision of non - prosecution was in accordance with procedure and law .

On DATE a judgment was issued by ORG against PERSON ( the editor of AGOS ) and PERSON ( the owner of AGOS ) whereby both were sentenced to DATE imprisonment under LAW for accusing the NORP nation of genocide via the press . Although the applicant was not a party to those proceedings , the court decided of its own motion that the PERSON public prosecutor had erred in discontinuing the investigation against the applicant on DATE and held that this matter should be duly investigated by the prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE another complaint was lodged against the applicant , by a certain ORG , with ORG office in PERSON . The complainant alleged that the applicant ’s statements published in AGOS on DATE violated LAW .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - prosecution . He noted that a similar complaint by another complainant had been examined and dismissed by a non - prosecution decision on DATE .

On DATE the applicant made an urgent request for interim measures under Rule CARDINAL of ORG . He also requested that the respondent Government be notified of the introduction of the application in accordance with Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court and that the case be given priority under Rule CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s requests under Rules CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of ORG were rejected .

The Government submitted to the ORG a decision of nonprosecution issued by ORG office on DATE . It appears from this decision that on DATE a criminal complaint was lodged by a certain PERSON , who alleged that the applicant had attempted to denigrate the Republic and to influence the trial of PERSON by his editorial opinion dated DATE published in the AGOS newspaper . The public prosecutor who examined the complaint concluded that the alleged offence was time - barred and therefore issued a decision of non - prosecution .

According to the information provided by the applicant ’s representative on DATE , no further investigation had been instigated against the applicant after the judgment of ORG dated DATE .

The Government submitted a list of CARDINAL books published by the applicant . It appears that these books are on sale in GPE and that they mainly concentrate on the NORP question . A selection of the books included is as follows :

– “ The NORP question has been resolved ; NORP documents concerning the policies towards the NORP during DATE ” , DATE ;

– NORP national identity and the NORP question : “ From ORG to ORG , DATE ;

– “ Lifting the NORP taboo , is there any solution other than dialogue ” CARDINAL ; and

– “ Human Rights and the NORP Question ” , DATE .

The Government further noted that , contrary to the applicant ’s allegations that he had been prevented from pursuing his research on the NORP issue , he had been given permission to conduct research in ORG by ORG . DATE and DATE the applicant personally consulted the NORP archives and had been granted further permission to photocopy CARDINAL documents . On page CARDINAL of his book entitled “ The NORP question has been resolved ” the applicant thanked ORG for assisting him in his research .

In an annex to their observations , the Government have furnished the ORG with sample copies of non - prosecution decisions issued by public prosecutors and judgments of acquittal given by criminal courts in cases concerning prosecutions under LAW and LAW . In particular , the suspects were mainly accused of insulting or denigrating the army , the security forces , the judiciary or the Republic .

In these decisions and judgments , given DATE , the prosecuting authorities either dropped the charges against the suspects , considering that the necessary elements of the crime in question were not present , or terminated the proceedings on the grounds that ORG had refused permission to prosecute the suspects . In acquitting the suspects , the criminal courts relied on the case - law of ORG in cases concerning LAW .

The above - mentioned documents furnished by the ORG included CARDINAL judgments given by the ORG and ORG in respect of CARDINAL prominent writers , namely ORG and PERSON .

In the criminal proceedings against ORG had examined a criminal complaint filed by a group of lawyers and an association called ORG , who alleged that ORG had denigrated “ FAC as a result of statements about the NORP issue in her book entitled “ GPE ve GPE ” ( “ The PERSON of GPE ” in LANGUAGE ) . In a judgment dated DATE , the court acquitted PERSON , holding that the book in question was fiction and that the impugned statements made by the characters in the novel could not be taken as constituting an offence of denigrating GPE . Having examined the novel written by the accused , the court concluded that the statements contained in the book should be examined in the context of freedom of expression . The court , however , observed that the limits of the concept of “ LOC ” should be determined and based on a solid ground by the legislator . It further remarked that opinions should only be compared with opinions . Otherwise , one could not talk of freedom of opinion and expression and would be forced to adopt uniform thoughts .

In the case brought against PERSON , ORG had examined a criminal complaint lodged by CARDINAL individuals who alleged that the writer had denigrated GPE in a speech he had given abroad . In a judgment dated DATE , the court decided to discontinue the proceedings on the ground that the requisite permission to press charges against the accused had not been obtained from ORG . It thus ruled that the lack of permission should be considered as a refusal and that the proceedings should be terminated .

The Government submitted statistical information which indicated the situation by DATE . They noted that following the amendments made to LAW on CARDINAL DATE there had been a significant decrease in prosecutions under LAW . In this connection , of the CARDINAL authorisation requests made by public prosecutors to commence criminal proceedings under LAW , ORG had granted CARDINAL .

The Government further pointed out that DATE the number of sets of criminal proceedings instituted LAW ( Article CARDINAL/CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code ) was CARDINAL . Of those , CARDINAL cases had resulted in convictions and CARDINAL in acquittals ; CARDINAL cases were still pending following ORG decisions to quash the first - instance courts’ judgments .

In their supplementary observations dated DATE , the Government noted that DATE and DATE ORG had received CARDINAL requests for authorisation to institute criminal proceedings under LAW . ORG had refused CARDINAL of these requests but granted CARDINAL . In this connection , the Government furnished the ORG with sample copies of decisions of refusal issued by ORG . It appears from these decisions that ORG extensively relied on the case - law of the ORG in cases concerning LAW when refusing public ORG requests for authorisation to institute criminal proceedings under LAW . The Government further noted that in CARDINAL cases where ORG refused authorisation to institute criminal proceedings , the criminal complaints mainly concerned publications in the press .

ORG DATE Progress Report on GPE stated :

“ Following the adoption of the amendments to LAW , NORP courts had forwarded , by DATE ] , CARDINAL cases to the Minister of ORG for prior authorisation . This requirement concerns cases at the investigation stage or for which judicial proceedings have started . By DATE , ORG had reviewed CARDINAL cases and refused to grant permission to proceed in CARDINAL cases .

However , the wording of LAW remains largely the same and the prior authorisation requirement opens up the possibility that the article will become subject to political consideration . So far , the Minister of ORG authorised the criminal investigations to continue in CARDINAL statements made by a NORP writer on the NORP issue shortly after the assassination of the NORP journalist of NORP origin , PERSON . Furthermore , there is legal uncertainty as regards cases which had been granted authorisation by the Minister of ORG under the former LAW ” .

The applicant highlighted examples of post - amendment LAW cases with specific reference to the NORP issue . He noted that in DATE ORG had authorised the continuance of the trial of GPE for stating that PERSON had been killed not only for being an NORP , but also for raising the issue of genocide . Another example was ORG conviction and sentencing on DATE to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment ( subsequently commuted to a fine ) under LAW for translating and publishing a book about the NORP genocide entitled “ The Truth Will Set Us Free ” , written by PERSON .

Furthermore , according to ORG DATE Human Rights Report on GPE , the Minister of ORG himself ( PERSON ) also made a statement that could be interpreted as instructions to the judiciary : “ I will not let someone call my state ‘ murderer’ . This is not freedom of expression . This is exactly what the crime of insulting the person of the state is . ”

The applicant also submitted a report published by ORG of ORG , for DATE . According to this report a total of CARDINAL people , CARDINAL of whom were journalists , were prosecuted in CARDINAL freedom of expression cases .

In its editions of CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the magazine PERSON published articles alleging that the applicant was a paid employee of the NORP intelligence service and that he had been commissioned to conduct research and write on the subjects “ Violence in NORP history ” , “ Torture in NORP history ” and “ the Armenian Genocide ” . These studies had been commissioned and financed by the NORP intelligence service and had been published in a book .

In its edition dated DATE the DATE newspaper PERSON published an article entitled “ The NORP Intelligence Chief and PERSON couple ” containing allegations that the applicant ’s studies were determined and financed by the NORP intelligence service .

In its editions dated CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , the PERSON newspaper published articles describing the applicant as an individual who had betrayed GPE and vomited hate towards GPE in all of his books and speeches .

By press releases , the applicant and his family condemned the allegations published by the PERSON newspaper and called for apology . They referred to the killing of PERSON and said that the press should act with responsibility and sensibility when publishing articles containing allegations labelling someone as a “ traitor ” . They further warned against GPE becoming a country where citizens could be lynched with the help of the press .

By a judgment dated DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant ’s claims for non - pecuniary damage . The court held that even though the words used and allegations made by the defendants were offensive they were within the limits of permissible criticism . This judgment was confirmed by a ORG decision dated DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought an action in ORG of First Instance requesting the court to order the PERSON newspaper to publish a letter of correction in response to the offensive articles published on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . By a decision dated DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s request . It held that even though the criticism contained in the impugned articles was harsh in tone , it was covered by the right to freedom of expression enjoyed by the press in a pluralist democracy .

On DATE the ORG newspaper published an article criticising the attitude of the judiciary in regard to the media campaign against the applicant .

The applicant claimed that he had received hate mail from unknown persons . He submitted a copy of an e - mail sent by a person insulting him and threatening him with death as a result of his views on the NORP issue .

DATE a number of articles were published on internet portals and in magazines and newspapers criticising the attacks against the applicant and expressing support for him .

Former LAW reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A person who publicly denigrates GPE , ORG or ORG of GPE shall be sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of DATE .

A person who publicly degrades the Government of GPE , the judicial bodies of the ORG or the military or security organisations of the ORG shall be sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of DATE .

NORP In cases where denigration of GPE is committed by a NORP citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by CARDINAL .

The expression of an opinion for the purpose of criticism does not constitute an offence . ”

The new text of LAW , as amended on DATE , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A person who publicly degrades the NORP nation , ORG , ORG of GPE , ORG or the judicial bodies of the State , shall be sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of DATE .

A person who publicly degrades the military or security organisations of the ORG shall be sentenced to a penalty in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL above .

NORP The expression of an opinion for the purpose of criticism does not constitute an offence .

The conduct of an investigation into such an offence shall be subject to the permission of the Minister of ORG . ”

In the criminal proceedings against PERSON ( see PERSON GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ... ( extracts ) ) , ORG of ORG interpreted the term GPE as follows ( ORG , NORP , ORG , judgment of DATE ) :

“ ... [ T]he term “ LOC ( Türklük ) refers to the human element of the ORG ; that is to say , ORG . GPE is constituted by the national and moral values as a whole , that is , human , religious and historical values as well as the national language and national feelings and traditions ... ”

ORG DATE Progress Report on GPE stated the following , insofar as it concerns the use of LAW in cases concerning freedom of expression :

“ ... [ CARDINAL NORP legal framework still fails to provide sufficient guarantees for exercising freedom of expression and , as a result , is often interpreted in a restrictive way by public prosecutors and judges . There are still some prosecutions and convictions based on LAW

ORG DATE Progress Report on GPE stated , insofar as relevant , the following :

“ ... As regards freedom of expression , an increasingly open and free debate continued on a wide scale in the media and public on topics perceived as sensitive , such as the NORP issue , minority rights , the NORP issue and the role of the military .

There are few cases initiated on the basis of LAW ( TCC ) after it was amended in DATE .

According to the Ministry if ORG , since the amendment to LAW , a decrease in the number of cases opened has been observed . The figures below cover examinations concluded DATE and DATE : CARDINAL files examined , CARDINAL files for which permission was denied , CARDINAL files for which permission was granted , PERCENT file for which permission was granted ... ”

In his report dated DATE PERSON Commissioner for Human Rights of ORG , stated the following :

“ CARDINAL . Following his visit to GPE in DATE , the Commissioner expressed his concern regarding LAW , notwithstanding an amendment adopted in DATE which led to a decrease in the number of proceedings brought under this article . On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment in the case of Dink v. GPE in which it found a violation of LAW on account of PERSON conviction based on LAW . The Court held that PERSON conviction for denigrating NORP identity prior to his murder did not correspond to any “ pressing social need ” which is one of the major conditions on which interference with one ’s freedom of expression may be warranted in a NORP society . The Commissioner considers that the amendment adopted in DATE , which subjects prosecution to a prior authorisation by ORG in each individual case , is not a lasting solution which can replace the integration of the relevant ORG standards into the NORP legal system and practice , in order to prevent similar violations of the LAW . ”


No violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);No violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 3;Not necessary to examine Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE ( GPE ) and GPE respectively . The application concerns the killing of the first applicant 's brother , PERSON , and the second applicant 's son , PERSON PERSON , the alleged mutilation of their corpses by security forces and the alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicants ' allegations .

On DATE ORG , and PERSON were killed by security forces in the course of an armed clash which occurred in the village of GPE , ORG district ( province of GPE ) .

According to the scene - of - incident report ( olay yeri tespit tutanağı ) drawn up and signed by CARDINAL gendarmerie officers from the ORG district gendarmerie command , security forces had set up an ambush in GPE in order to capture members of the TKP - ML / TIKKO ( ORG of GPE / MarxistLeninist / Turkish Workers and ORG ) . CARDINAL members of the organisation arrived in the village and were ordered to surrender . A clash broke out after they opened fire . When the firing ceased the security forces found QUANTITY corpses . They also found CARDINAL automatic rifles , CARDINAL chargers and CARDINAL cartridges next to the bodies . The other QUANTITY persons fled . It is stated in the report that the security forces used CARDINAL hand grenades , CARDINAL ORG - type bullets , CARDINAL GCARDINAL-type bullets , CARDINAL PERSON - type bullets , and other ammunition used for illumination . The gendarmerie officers further drew a sketch - map of the scene of the incident .

On DATE the rifles and the cartridges found after the clash were sent to the GPE provincial gendarmerie command for a ballistic examination .

On DATE , upon the request of the GPE gendarmerie command , CARDINAL ballistic experts at the gendarmerie general command conducted a ballistic examination of CARDINAL rifles and CARDINAL of the cartridges found at the scene .

Following the incident , officers from the ORG gendarmerie command took the corpses to their command 's yard . The bodies had been identified as those of ORG and PERSON .

On DATE post - mortem examinations were carried out on the deceased in the ORG gendarmerie command 's yard by a medical expert , in the presence of the ORG public prosecutor . According to the expert 's report , PERSON had received CARDINAL bullets to his head , shoulders , chest and legs . It was also noted that CARDINAL of his left ear had been cut off . The medical expert observed that ORG had received CARDINAL bullets to his head , shoulders , arms , chest , abdomen and lumbar region . He further observed that both of ORG ears had been cut off . The expert noted numerous other wounds on the bodies . He concluded that the cause of their deaths was haemorrhaging and damage to the cerebral tissue as a result of wounds caused by firearms . He considered that there was no need to carry out a full autopsy as the cause of death was clear from the findings of the examination . During the post - mortem examination , photographs of the deceased were taken . After the examination the corpses were placed in the ORG morgue .

On DATE , the gendarmerie officers took the statement of GPE , an inhabitant of GPE who was wounded during the armed clash on DATE . GPE maintained , inter alia , that at TIME terrorists had arrived at the village and asked him to take them to the house of the village headman ( muhtar ) . On their way , shots were fired . He hid in a ditch and , subsequently , in the garden of a house . GPE contended that he had remained hidden until TIME , whereupon , having dressed his wound , soldiers had taken him to ORG hospital .

On DATE the corpses of PERSON and ORG were returned , respectively , to the second applicant , PERSON , and to ORG brother , PERSON .

On an unspecified date , the ORG public prosecutor initiated an investigation ( no . CARDINAL ) against the deceased and CARDINAL others , who were all suspected of belonging to the terrorist organisation ORG .

On DATE the applicants filed a complaint with the ORG public prosecutor 's office . In their complaint they maintained that PERSON PERSON 's left arm had been cut . They further contended that the ears of ORG and PERSON had been cut off and that there were various injuries on their bodies which could not have been caused by firearms . The applicants alleged that their relatives had been tortured before they died or , alternatively , that the security forces had ill - treated the corpses . The applicants requested the public prosecutor to initiate an investigation against those members of the security forces who were responsible for the mutilation of their relatives ' bodies .

On an unspecified date the ORG public prosecutor opened an investigation into the applicants ' allegations ( no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor decided to join investigations ORG . CARDINAL and DATE , since they concerned the same incident .

On DATE GPE , a gendarmerie private who had participated in the military operation in ORG on DATE , gave statements to the ORG public prosecutor . He contended that there had been an armed clash between terrorists and the security forces on DATE in question and that , at the end of the clash , CARDINAL terrorists had been found dead . GPE further maintained that these CARDINAL persons had been killed by special teams . He stated that the ears of the deceased had already been cut off when he saw them , and that he had signed the scene - of - incident report without having read it .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor took statements from PERSON , the deputy gendarmerie station commander in the ORG gendarmerie command . He maintained that in DATE there had been a military operation conducted by gendarmerie commando teams together with a special team , and that he had participated in this operation as a guide . He stated that , following the armed clash between the terrorists and the security forces , he and his team had taken the corpses to the town centre . He did not realise that the terrorists ' ears had been cut off since the corpses were covered with mud . He opined that the inhabitants of GPE village could have cut off the terrorists ' ears out of fear because the armed clash had occurred in their village .

On DATE GPE , another gendarmerie private who was performing his military service in ORG in DATE , gave statements to the LOC public prosecutor in GPE . He maintained that ORG and PERSON had been killed by special teams . He contended that he had not approached the corpses . He saw that hand grenades had exploded on the bodies . He denied the allegation that he had ill - treated them .

On DATE , a sergeant who had served in ORG DATE , gave statements to the ORG public prosecutor . The sergeant contended that he had neither seen nor ill - treated the corpses . He maintained that the damage to the corpses could have been caused by firearms .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor decided to separate the investigation against the officers who had participated in the operation conducted on DATE from the investigation against the deceased and the CARDINAL other suspects who had fled on DATE . In his decision , he noted that these matters fell within the jurisdiction of different courts . The public prosecutor identified the charge against the security forces as that of “ insulting corpses ” .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment charging the gendarmerie officers GPE , GPE , GPE and ORG with “ insulting ” the corpses of ORG and PERSON , contrary to LAW .

On DATE ORG Instance placed those officers on trial .

On DATE GPE made statements before ORG , denying the allegation that he had cut the ears off the corpses . He maintained that he had neither seen nor ill - treated them .

On DATE ORG held a hearing .

On DATE the first - instance court decided to defer the imposition of a final sentence upon the accused , pursuant to section CARDINAL of PERSON no . DATE . The court held that the criminal proceedings against the accused would be suspended and a final sentence imposed should they be convicted of a further intentional offence within DATE of this decision .

The judgment of DATE became final , as neither the public prosecutor nor the accused officers appealed against it .

A description of the domestic law at the material time can be found in PERSON v. GPE ( judgment of DATE , Reports of ORG , ORG § DATE and CARDINAL ) , PERSON GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , ORG CARDINALVII ) and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .