Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 13+2;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants are the CARDINAL NORP nationals listed below :

PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON ( also spelled as PERSON ) , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE ;

Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;

Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;

Ms Malizh Byutukayeva , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON ( also spelled as Nurshan ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE ;

Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;

Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE ;

Ms. PERSON , born in DATE ;

Ms. PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON ( also spelled as GPE ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

Ms Maret Musayeva , born in DATE ;

Ms Malizha Osmayeva , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE ;

Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;

Mr PERSON ( also spelled as GPE and PERSON ) , born in DATE ;

Ms Mani ( also spelled as ORG , born in DATE ; and

PERSON ( also spelled as PERSON ) , born in DATE .

PERSON lives in ORG , PERSON lives in ORG and PERSON lives in GPE , GPE . The other applicants live in the village of LOC , in the LOC district , GPE .

The facts of the case are connected to the application ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE , in that the applicants and their relatives were victims of the attack on the village of ORG that took place DATE . In the ORG case the applicant and her relatives were trying to escape the fighting on DATE when an aviation bomb exploded near their minivan , wounding the applicant and killing CARDINAL of her relatives . In that case the ORG established a number of facts relevant to the present case which can be summarised as follows .

Since the beginning of military operations by the NORP military and security forces in GPE in DATE , the village of ORG had been treated as a “ safe zone . ” By DATE CARDINAL persons lived there , including local residents and internally displaced persons from elsewhere in GPE . Prior to DATE the residents of ORG had not been informed by the ORG authorities about the possible advance of NORP insurgent formations into the village , whereas such information had been available to federal military commanders . On DATE the village was captured by a large group of NORP fighters escaping from PERSON and the federal military forces subsequently carried out an assault , using weapons such as heavy freefalling aviation bombs , missiles and other arsenal . The CARDINAL roads out of the village were controlled by the military by means of roadblocks . While the roadblock leading towards the district centre of ORG allowed the residents to leave , the other one , placed on the road leading towards the neighbouring village of GPE , remained closed for the majority of the fighting . The shelling of ORG continued until DATE and throughout DATE .

At the material time , all of the applicants lived in GPE - Yurt . As a result of the bombardment , CARDINAL of the applicants ' relatives died ( see table attached ) . Some applicants also sustained various injuries , as summarised below .

In DATE some of the applicants made detailed statements to their representative , the Stichting NORP Justice Initiative ( SRJI ) , to describe the circumstances of the deaths and injuries resulting from the attack . Others submitted documents certifying the deaths of their relatives , without further explanations . The various statements and submissions can be summarised as follows .

Marusya Abuyeva lives with her family in GPE - Yurt at CARDINAL FAC . In DATE they heard rumours that their village could be taken over by fighters who had escaped from ORG and who had already been spotted in the villages of ORG and ORG . On DATE the applicant and her family tried to leave for ORG in a horse - drawn cart . They were prevented from doing so by military servicemen at the roadblock , who explained to them that no one would be allowed to leave the village .

NORP In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant witnessed a large group of armed fighters entering the village from the direction of ORG to the north of the village . The applicant and her family went into the cellar , anticipating and fearing the bombardment which started soon afterwards .

During TIME there was a lull in the attack and the applicant 's son , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , went upstairs . DATE the applicant followed him upstairs and saw a group of men in the courtyard , who told her that PERSON had been killed . Their house had been destroyed by an artillery shell .

NORP Marusya GPE , her husband and her son PERSON took the body of PERSON and tried to leave the village through the roadblock , heading north towards the village of ORG . According to the applicant , it took them TIME to cross the distance of CARDINAL or QUANTITY to the roadblock because of the shelling and confusion . By the time they reached the roadblock , there were already many other residents there . The military refused to let anyone through .

NORP Marusya GPE and her family , along with other refugees , spent the ensuing DATE camping in houses situated near the roadblock , because the servicemen assured them that it would be safe to remain there . Nevertheless , the houses were shot at on CARDINAL occasion , as a result of which CARDINAL people were killed and about QUANTITY wounded . They could not return to the village because of the fighting . The applicant and other residents suffered from cold and hunger . On DATE they were allowed to go to ORG .

On DATE ORG civil registration office ( hereinafter “ the district civil registration office ” ) recorded PERSON death and that it had occurred in ORG on DATE .

According to the applicant , upon returning home they found their house and property destroyed . In DATE she was interviewed by NORP , an investigator from the military prosecutor 's office , who assured her that the persons responsible for the attack would be identified and that she would receive compensation . She had not heard anything further in that regard .

PERSON lived in ORG . In DATE she was trading in the ORG market together with PERSON . When the city came under bombardment she , together with her family , went to ORG where they all stayed with PERSON sister . The applicant considered ORG to be a safe place because there was a military unit stationed there and there was no fighting . The applicant and PERSON traded in the local market and on DATE went to the market in ORG .

On DATE some NORP military servicemen stopped the applicant and ORG , PERSON son , on the road to the village of ORG because they had an order not to let anyone out of the village .

Early in the morning on DATE the applicant learned that the village had been occupied by fighters . Soon afterwards , shelling started from the direction of the north .

NORP The applicant , her family and PERSON family took shelter in the basement of a house situated further down the road . TIME , an official from the village administration came to that house and told them that the military had allowed residents to leave in the direction of ORG . PERSON , her CARDINAL sons – Islam , PERSON and PERSON – and the applicant 's son , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , remained in the cellar because they wanted to collect their belongings and leave with their vehicles .

The applicant walked in a group of CARDINAL people , together with PERSON sister , daughter ( PERSON , applicant DATE ) and CARDINAL grandchildren . Despite the shelling that had been going on , the applicant reached ORG at TIME on DATE .

On DATE she returned to the village . Together with PERSON relatives , the applicant found that PERSON sister 's house had been destroyed .

On DATE some men helped them to clear the ruins . They found CARDINAL bodies in the cellar of the house , including those of PERSON ( the second applicant 's son ) , PERSON and her CARDINAL sons . They had been killed by an explosion . There were also large craters left from bombs that had fallen near the house ( see statement by PERSON below ) .

On DATE the district civil registration office issued a death certificate in respect of PERSON . The date and place of death were recorded DATE in ORG .

PERSON submitted that during DATE she had been interviewed by an investigator from the military prosecutor 's office at the GPE - Yurt village administration office . At the end of the interview , the applicant signed the transcript and was assured that she would be informed of the progress of the investigation . In DATE the applicant learned from other residents of ORG that the investigation had been closed DATE but that no one had been informed at the time .

PERSON lives in ORG at CARDINAL FAC . Shelling of the village started at TIME on DATE . The applicant 's family went down into the basement of their house . At TIME the third applicant 's father , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , was wounded in the courtyard as a result of a blast . The applicant and her mother brought PERSON to the cellar of his cousin 's house but were unable to give him any medical aid . There were a lot of people , including women and children , at the house . On DATE the applicant and other people went to ORG under continuous shelling .

On DATE the applicant 's brother came to ORG and told them that their father had died of his wounds on DATE .

On DATE the district civil registration office issued a death certificate . The date and place of PERSON death were recorded DATE in ORG .

PERSON submitted that CARDINAL after the events , she and her mother had been interviewed by an official from the military prosecutor 's office . They had not heard further in that regard .

The applicants ' family is from ORG . In DATE they were staying with their relatives in GPE , at CARDINAL Chkalova Street . The family consisted of PERSON , her husband PERSON ( born in DATE ) , their daughter PERSON ( born in DATE ) , and CARDINAL sons , ORG and PERSON ( born in DATE and DATE respectively ) . Heavy shelling of the village started on TIME .

The applicants took shelter at CARDINAL Chkalova Street . At TIME they got into a ORG truck and drove towards the centre of the village but because of the heavy shelling they had to abandon the vehicle and return to the cellar , under fire .

Soon afterwards a missile hit the house where they had been hiding . Each of the applicants was wounded and CARDINAL other people were killed on the spot . The fourth applicant 's son called their neighbours , who helped to take the wounded to another house . They remained there – without proper medical assistance – until TIME .

During TIME CARDINAL DATE the family and CARDINAL other relatives went towards ORG in a car . On DATE , the fourth applicant was admitted to ORG hospital where she was operated upon . Her husband was immediately transferred to the hospital in GPE , Ingushetia .

PERSON remained in the hospital in Achkhoy - Martan until DATE . The document issued by the hospital upon discharge noted that she had suffered from several splinter wounds , including piercing of the left lung , severe loss of blood and inflammation , and that on DATE she had been operated upon for a second time but that a splinter had remained in her body .

Mamudtsalya PERSON remained in the FAC hospital until DATE . He was diagnosed with a shell wound to the head and with concussion and he was operated on at the FAC . He also continues to have a splinter in his head . He was granted disability of the first degree and for a long time was unable to move or eat without assistance .

PERSON sustained a wound to the face . In DATE she underwent surgery on her eyelids in a specialised hospital in GPE .

PERSON submitted that she had been interviewed by a military prosecutor on CARDINAL occasion . The investigator assured her that she would be notified of the results and that compensation would be paid to the family . The applicants had not been informed of any further developments and had not received any compensation .

The applicants are brother and sister . They live with other members of their extended family in ORG at CARDINAL LOC . PERSON is married and has QUANTITY children . On TIME the applicants saw a group of armed fighters in the village . Soon afterwards heavy shelling started .

During TIME CARDINAL DATE , PERSON was wounded in the left leg by a shell explosion in his courtyard . He lost a lot of blood and could not move . On DATE he was found in the courtyard of his house by a group of NORP servicemen who gave him first aid and transferred him to the Urus - Martan hospital . There he was diagnosed with shell wounds to the left leg , frost bite , loss of blood and hypothermia . On DATE his left leg was amputated as a result of developing gangrene . He remained in the hospital until DATE .

PERSON and other members of the family tried to escape the fighting through the exit towards ORG . On DATE they reached the roadblock but were not allowed to pass . The eighth applicant and other residents were advised by the servicemen to wait in CARDINAL empty houses near the roadblock . On DATE these houses were shot at from passing military vehicles , as a result of which both PERSON and PERSON daughter , PERSON , were wounded . The military then allowed the QUANTITY women to leave the village . Other servicemen delivered them to the Urus - Martan district hospital where they were given first aid .

On DATE PERSON was transferred to the ORG district hospital in GPE , where she was diagnosed with a shell wound to the right upper part of the torso , an open fracture of the right shoulder blade and infection of the wounds . She was operated upon and remained in hospital until DATE . No documents were submitted in relation to PERSON .

During DATE , an investigator from the military prosecutor 's office interviewed PERSON about the events of DATE . She was told that she would be informed of the outcome of the proceedings .

PERSON is PERSON sister - in - law ( see statement by PERSON , applicant CARDINAL , below ) . She had CARDINAL children , including PERSON ( born in DATE ) , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , and PERSON , who at the relevant time was DATE . She lived at CARDINAL Chkalova Street , ORG with her husband and children . At the material time , there were CARDINAL internally displaced people from the village of ORG staying in their house .

Early in the morning on DATE the applicants took shelter in the large basement of PERSON CARDINAL - storey house . CARDINAL people gathered there , including old people and children . Heavy shelling continued all TIME .

At TIME there were CARDINAL strong blasts which destroyed the house and damaged the basement . CARDINAL people died immediately and another CARDINAL died later of their injuries . PERSON received several wounds to the hands and body . Her CARDINAL children , PERSON , PERSON and GPE , were also wounded .

She and her CARDINAL wounded children were taken by a fellow villager in a car to Achkhoy - Martan . In the confusion she had lost track of her son PERSON . Having sent her CARDINAL wounded children to the hospital in GPE , she returned to ORG to find PERSON at her neighbours ' house . Later on the same day PERSON , her husband and their son PERSON , along with other people , managed to leave the village under shelling . They were brought to ORG hospital .

PERSON was diagnosed with a piercing wound to the chest , a shell wound to the right hand and with concussion . She remained in the hospital of ORG until DATE .

PERSON was diagnosed with shell wounds to the left waist area and left shoulder . PERSON was diagnosed with a shell wound to the left hand . Both girls were discharged from the Urus - Martan hospital on DATE .

PERSON son PERSON died on DATE in the hospital in GPE . On DATE the district civil registration office issued a death certificate confirming this information .

PERSON was interviewed as a witness by the officers of the military prosecutor 's office . In DATE she learnt that the case had been closed in DATE .

PERSON lives in her own house in GPE - Yurt at CARDINAL Chkalova Lane . On DATE she was at home with her CARDINAL children : NORP PERSON ( applicant CARDINAL , born in DATE ) ; PERSON ( born in DATE ) ; PERSON ( born in DATE ) ; PERSON ( applicant CARDINAL , born in DATE ) ; PERSON ( applicant CARDINAL , born in DATE ) ; and PERSON ( born in DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant 's extended family and many neighbours gathered in the large basement of her house . Heavy shelling continued all morning . At TIME there were CARDINAL strong blasts . The neighbours later told them that a large aviation bomb dropped by parachute had fallen on the house .

According to the applicant , CARDINAL people died on the spot and CARDINAL others died soon after . PERSON suffered wounds to her back and hands . Her daughter PERSON suffered injuries to the face , hands , legs and back .

PERSON and her children ran to another house under constant fire and shelling . However , shortly afterwards that house was also hit by a bomb , and her son PERSON suffered an injury to the head .

PERSON , her daughter PERSON and son PERSON were picked up in the street by a neighbour in a car who took them to a hospital in Achkhoy - Martan . They received first aid there , although no medical records of this were produced .

On DATE , DATE , the applicant 's CARDINAL other children arrived at ORG . Her son NORP had been wounded and taken by bus to ORG hospital .

The applicant submitted that they had remained in ORG hospital for DATE , after which they had been sent to a rehabilitation centre . The applicant did not submit any medical records .

At some point , PERSON was interviewed by officials from the military prosecutor 's office but did not receive any information about the progress of the investigation or any compensation .

PERSON lives in GPE at LOC . On DATE she was at home with her husband and CARDINAL children ( born DATE ) . Early in the morning , the applicant and her family went to the cellar of the ORG ' house situated nearby .

Some time in TIME CARDINAL powerful blasts occurred . Several people were killed and wounded . The applicant 's son PERSON , who was CARDINAL at the time , was wounded in the head . The applicant , who was holding her youngest child in her hands , jumped out of the window , but had to climb back in because of the continued shelling . She and her CARDINAL children then got out of the basement and were taken by neighbours to another house . The applicant did not see her husband .

At TIME , the applicant and her children escaped ORG in a bus , under heavy shelling . They received first aid in the hospital of ORG and were subsequently taken in by their relatives .

On DATE the applicant learnt that her husband , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , had died as result of the explosion at the ORG ' house . On DATE the district civil registration office certified the death of PERSON in ORG on DATE .

In DATE the applicant was summoned to the local prosecutor 's office and interviewed by an investigator from the military prosecutor 's office . The same investigator visited the ORG ' house and took photographs at the site of the explosions .

In DATE she learnt from her fellow villagers that the investigation had been closed in DATE .

Khava PERSON lives in GPE - Yurt at CARDINAL Chkalova Street . On TIME her extended family gathered in their neighbours , the ORG ' , basement . TIME , despite the shelling , the applicant left the basement and went to her house in order to fetch some food . When she was returning to the basement she saw CARDINAL explosions – one near the house and CARDINAL directly hitting it . There was a lot of smoke and debris thrown around . Among the wounded people taken out of the basement , the applicant saw her mother - in - law , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , who had suffered injuries to the body and head . PERSON and the other wounded were taken by car to ORG .

Khava PERSON and the rest of her family tried to get out of GPE DATE by a bus , but were forced to return to the basement of a nearby house because of air strikes . During TIME of CARDINAL DATE they went by foot to the western edge of the village where a large number of people had gathered trying to escape the fighting . At first , the soldiers at the roadblock refused to let the men through , but after pressure from the families eventually let everyone go . In Achkhoy - Martan she learnt that PERSON had died . On DATE the district civil registration office recorded PERSON death as having occurred in ORG on DATE as a result of a head injury .

DATE . DATE , the applicant returned to ORG and found her house destroyed . During DATE she was interviewed by an investigator from the military prosecutor 's office . She was assured that a criminal investigation was being carried out into the deaths of her mother - in - law and of other people and that she would be informed of its results .

PERSON lives in ORG at CARDINAL FAC . In DATE the applicant lived there with her mother , daughter PERSON ( born in DATE ) , CARDINAL nieces and nephew , PERSON ( born in DATE ) .

On TIME the applicant and her family went to the basement of the house situated at CARDINAL FAC , because they had heard artillery strikes at the neighbouring village of LOC . They spent DATE of CARDINAL DATE in the basement . At TIME on DATE , the applicant 's nephew PERSON went out into the street and returned to tell them that women and children could leave the village .

The applicant and her family members walked towards the centre of the village . When they were QUANTITY away from their house , PERSON returned to the house to let the cattle out . As soon as he came out of the gates to their house , a ORG minivan in the street right in front of the gates was hit by a missile launched from a plane . The applicant was hit by a shock wave and her daughter PERSON fell to the ground and broke her collar bone . When she stood up , the applicant saw the body of her nephew on the ground in front of their gates . Some other people held her back when she wanted to return home . Instead , the applicant ran towards the road out of the village . At some point they were picked up by a bus and taken to ORG .

On DATE the applicant returned to ORG and found the body of her nephew , who had sustained numerous shrapnel wounds to the head and torso . She kept his jacket , which was later taken from her by the military prosecutor 's office . The applicant later learnt that the ORG ' family were in the ORG minivan ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above ) .

On DATE the district civil registration office issued a death certificate in respect of PERSON , recording that he had died on DATE in GPE .

During DATE , PERSON was interviewed by the military prosecutor 's office and she showed them the place where her nephew had been killed . On DATE occasions she was again interviewed as a witness . The applicant did not recall being formally granted victim status , though she had asked for this on several occasions .

Aliya Debirova lives with her extended family in ORG at CARDINAL Chkalova Street . On DATE the applicant , her husband PERSON , their sons , PERSON and PERSON , and some other relatives were at home .

DATE . Early in the morning they saw armed men in the streets of the village . Soon afterwards , shelling and aerial bombing began . The applicant and her family members went to the basement of their neighbours ' house . Her son PERSON and her husband then went to another house . At QUANTITY the applicant 's husband , PERSON , was killed by an explosion in the courtyard of his house .

After that , the applicant and other members of her family walked to the centre of the village and got into a ORG truck going to ORG . The shelling continued , and at some point the roof of the truck 's cabin was blown off by a splinter . The truck finally reached the roadblock , where the military inspected the vehicle and let it through . The applicant and her family remained in ORG for DATE . When they returned to ORG , their house had been destroyed and the cattle killed . Her husband 's body had been already buried .

On DATE the district civil registration office recorded the death from third and fourth degree burns of PERSON , aged DATE , on DATE in ORG .

The applicant submitted that DATE she had been interviewed by officials from the military prosecutor 's office . The officials had filmed the place where her husband had been killed and the destroyed house with a video camera . They had told her that she would receive compensation .

The applicant lives with her family at CARDINAL-b LOC in GPE . On DATE she and her family members were at home when a group of fighters came into their house . They told the family to go down into the basement in case the village was shelled . The applicant and her relatives went to the ORG ' family house situated further along LOC . There were a lot of people in the FAC ' basement .

At TIME there was a powerful explosion . The applicant was wounded in the left side of her torso and suffered concussion . Her motherin - law , PERSON , and brother - in - law , PERSON , were also injured . The applicant stated that QUANTITY people had died as a result of the explosion at the ORG ' house .

Neighbours put the applicant , her mother - in - law and another wounded woman into a car . Under shelling , the car reached the roadblock . At first , the military refused to let them through . DATE , another man arrived at the roadblock with his mother , PERSON , who had also been wounded in the same house ( see the statement of PERSON , applicant DATE , above ) . The military finally let them pass .

The applicant was admitted to ORG hospital . The doctors first treated PERSON and PERSON , as they had suffered more serious wounds . DATE the applicant was operated upon and a piece of shrapnel was removed from her body .

In the meantime the applicant 's brother - in - law had been taken by her husband , along with other wounded , in a PERSON utility vehicle towards ORG . PERSON died of his wounds during the journey and his body was left in GPE . The other wounded were taken to the Urus - Martan district hospital .

On CARDINAL and on DATE , respectively , the district civil registration office issued death certificates for PERSON , aged DATE , who had died on DATE in ORG from piercing shell wounds to the abdomen , and for PERSON , aged CARDINAL , who had died on DATE in ORG from numerous splinter wounds to the head .

PERSON remained in ORG district hospital until DATE . She was operated on for splinter wounds to the left side of the body .

In DATE she was interviewed by representatives of the military prosecutor 's office who promised to inform her about the progress of the investigation and to award her compensation . In DATE she learnt that the investigation had been closed . She stated that she continued to suffer from her injuries .

Maret Musayeva lives in GPE - Yurt at LOC . TIME on DATE a group of fighters entered the applicant 's house . When the shelling started the applicant took her CARDINAL daughters , at that time aged DATE , to her neighbours , the ORG ' , house . At TIME a large bomb fell on the house . The applicant was wounded in the back . She stated that CARDINAL people had died on the spot and that CARDINAL more later died in hospital .

The applicant and others were rescued by neighbours . She was brought to ORG under fire . She remained there in hospital for DATE ; she submitted no medical records in this respect .

NORP Some time later , the applicant was questioned by an official from the military prosecutor 's office who assured her that the persons responsible for the attack would be identified and that she would receive compensation . Only later , in DATE , did she learn that the investigation had been terminated .

Malizha Osmayeva lives at CARDINAL FAC in GPE . In DATE she lived there with her husband PERSON , their CARDINAL children , her mother - in - law and other relatives .

NORP The applicant 's family hosted displaced people from other localities affected by the hostilities . The applicant submitted that the arrival of a large group of well - armed fighters in TIME on DATE was unexpected .

At TIME the village came under fire from planes and helicopters . The applicant , her extended family and her neighbours gathered in the basement of her house . According to the applicant , there were CARDINAL families sheltering , with a total of CARDINAL children . At TIME the applicant 's husband went upstairs to get drinking water . There was an explosion nearby and PERSON was seriously wounded in the head . The people in the basement brought him back down but could not give him proper medical assistance . They remained there until TIME when a neighbour came to collect his family with a PERSON utility vehicle and picked up the applicant and her husband .

Under fire , the vehicle brought the applicant 's husband to the hospital in Achkhoy - Martan , where he died on DATE .

On TIME the applicant 's CARDINAL children and mother - in - law were taken out of ORG by the same neighbour .

On DATE ORG civil registration office recorded the death of PERSON on DATE in ORG from a piercing wound to the head .

At some point , the applicant was interviewed at her home by an investigator from the military prosecutor 's office . The investigator inspected the site where the applicant 's husband had been wounded . Some time later , CARDINAL other investigators collected the clothes her husband had been wearing on DATE from her . The clothes were never returned to the applicant .

At some point , an officer of ORG district prosecutor 's office told the applicant that she would be informed of the outcome as soon as the investigation was over .

In DATE the applicant received a letter from the military prosecutor 's office of ORG which informed her that the investigation had been closed . She did not receive any help from the ORG , although her husband had been the sole bread winner of the family .

PERSON lives in PERSON with her family . In DATE her family fled to ORG . She stayed in her aunt 's house on FAC . The following family members came to ORG with the applicant : her mother , PERSON ( born in DATE ) ; her brothers , ORG ( born in DATE ) , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , and PERSON ( born in DATE ) ; and her daughters , PERSON ( born in DATE ) ; and ORG ( born in DATE ) .

Together with PERSON ( applicant CARDINAL , see her statement above ) the applicant 's relatives traded goods in the markets of GPE and ORG . On DATE they were prevented from leaving the village of ORG by the soldiers manning the roadblock on the main road .

Early in the morning on DATE the shelling of the village started . The applicant , her CARDINAL daughters , PERSON and her other relatives decided to leave ORG on foot , while her mother and CARDINAL brothers decided to wait for a quiet period so that they could leave with their trucks .

The applicant and the others reached the main road but could not proceed because of intense shelling . They took shelter in the cellar of a house along with CARDINAL other people , including many children . There was very little space inside . At TIME everyone went out in the street and walked towards the roadblock . The military let them cross and they reached ORG .

On DATE the applicant learned that her mother , PERSON , and her CARDINAL brothers , ORG , PERSON and PERSON , had been killed in the cellar of the house at CARDINAL FAC , together with PERSON , PERSON son . CARDINAL people were killed in the basement of that house as the result of an explosion of a large aviation bomb , which had left a huge crater .

On DATE the district civil registration office issued CARDINAL death certificates in respect of the applicant 's mother and CARDINAL brothers . The deaths were recorded as having occurred on DATE in ORG .

At some point the applicant was interviewed by an investigator from the military prosecutor 's office in the ORG administration . The applicant informed him of her relatives ' deaths . PERSON was interviewed on DATE . The applicant was assured that she and the other relatives of the victims would be informed as to the progress of the investigation .

NORP In DATE the applicant learnt from other residents of ORG that the investigation had been closed . She had never received any formal notification of that fact .

PERSON lives in GPE - Yurt at CARDINAL FAC . As soon as the shelling started TIME of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant and her family members went to shelter in the cellar of their house . TIME the applicant heard that the military would allow women and children to leave the village .

At TIME the applicant , her CARDINAL nephews ( children of her brother PERSON ) , PERSON and the latter 's relatives started walking towards ORG ( see statements by applicants CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The applicant 's mother , PERSON , her brother , PERSON , and his wife , PERSON , decided to remain in the house . CARDINAL other people who had been displaced from ORG remained with them : PERSON , her CARDINAL sons , ORG , PERSON and PERSON , and their friend , PERSON .

The shelling continued as they walked , and at some point they were forced to look for shelter in a cellar of a house . They stayed there until TIME when there was a lull in the attack and they took the opportunity to walk further towards the roadblock . At first , the military objected to the men leaving the village but finally let everyone through . The applicant and others walked to ORG .

On DATE the military permitted the residents to enter the village for TIME . The applicant and her CARDINAL male relatives found their house destroyed by a bomb blast . As a result of the blast , a wall of the cellar had collapsed and killed everyone who was inside . On DATE the applicant and her relatives removed and buried the bodies .

On DATE the district civil registration office noted the deaths of PERSON , aged DATE , PERSON , aged CARDINAL , and PERSON , aged DATE , which had occurred on DATE from numerous splinter wounds .

In DATE the applicant was interviewed by an investigator from the military prosecutor 's office in the presence of the village police officer . The investigator assured the applicant that she would be informed of the results of the investigation . In DATE the applicant heard that the case had been closed , and upon application to the military prosecutor 's office was officially informed that the case had been closed DATE .

PERSON lives in GPE - Yurt at DATE FAC , near the central mosque . On DATE she was at home with her family : her father , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , her brother and her sister . On DATE they went down into the cellar because they heard the sound of military planes above them . Some time DATE , the applicant 's father went to see the applicant 's other sister , who lived with her family further down the street . TIME after he had left , there was a missile attack which , as the applicant later learned , had killed her father in the street .

Later in the afternoon of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant 's sister 's CARDINAL - member family joined her . However , DATE they moved further away from the centre of the village , judging it to be safer . They spent TIME and TIME there .

NORP In TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant and her family members walked to the roadblock situated on the road out of the village towards PERSON . They were detained with numerous other residents of ORG , as the servicemen at the roadblock referred to orders not to let anyone out of the village . However , as a result of negotiations and mounting pressure the applicant and her relatives were allowed to pass .

DATE the applicant and her sister returned to ORG . They learnt that their father had been killed on CARDINAL February CARDINAL by a missile strike . The applicant found pieces of clothes in the street which she identified as belonging to her father and buried them . Their house was also destroyed .

On DATE the district civil registration office issued a death certificate in respect of Abdulshakhit PERSON . The date and place of death were recorded as DATE in ORG .

At some point , the applicant was interviewed by investigators from the military prosecutor 's office and granted victim status in the criminal investigation . She had not been made aware of any other actions taken to further the investigation by the prosecutor 's office .

Mani Umalatova lives in GPE - Yurt at CARDINAL FAC . Her family 's house is situated near the edge of the village . In DATE a large number of relatives from ORG stayed in their house and at some point their number reached CARDINAL people . On DATE they notified their presence to the head of the village administration and learned that no one was allowed to leave the village .

On CARDINAL and DATE , the applicant 's relatives tried to leave the village either by car or on foot DATE initially attempting to go to ORG and afterwards trying to leave for ORG . However , on DATE they were prevented from leaving the village by the servicemen manning the roadblocks . The soldiers referred to a formal order from their superiors and at CARDINAL point fired a shot in the air .

NORP In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant learned that fighters had entered the village . She saw several military trucks with NORP servicemen driving out of the village . Once the bombing started , the applicant and her family had to look for shelter in several basements before they found sufficient space .

During TIME CARDINAL DATE , a relative told them that the military had allowed people to leave ORG if they did so within TIME . The group loaded into CARDINAL ORG trucks , made a white flag out of a bed sheet and drove towards the centre of the village . However , because of aerial attacks on several occasions , they had to stop , get out of the trucks and seek shelter in the nearby houses .

The CARDINAL vehicles turned towards the road out of the village leading to ORG . When they reached the roadblock , the servicemen refused to let anyone through . The servicemen suggested that they join the people camped in CARDINAL empty houses near the roadblock and assured them that they would be safe . However , later one of the houses was shot at from a tank .

On TIME , the applicant again went towards the roadblock – hoping that her family would be allowed to leave . As she did so , she saw a convoy of NORP military vehicles driving through the roadblock at the edge of the village . The military convoy opened fire towards the houses where people had sought shelter . The applicant 's son , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , was shot dead while he reached for food in the cabin of their relative 's ORG truck . The applicant submitted that another person was killed at the same time .

On DATE the applicant reached the roadblock and told the servicemen how her son had been killed . After a while she was helped to cross the roadblock by NORP militiamen and taken to GPE .

She returned to ORG DATE and found that her house and CARDINAL other houses in their courtyard had been destroyed .

On DATE the district civil registration office issued a death certificate stating that Salambek Umalatov had died on DATE in ORG .

The applicant stated that she had obtained some compensation for the destruction of her house but not for the other buildings forming part of the household . At some point , PERSON was interviewed in relation to her son 's death by investigator PERSON signed the transcript of the interview and accompanied the investigator to the place where her son had been killed . She was assured that she would be informed of the results of the investigation .

PERSON lives at QUANTITY FAC in GPE . Her extended family , including her mother , CARDINAL brothers , sisterin - law and mother - in - law , lived with her at the same address . In total , the extended family had CARDINAL children , including the applicant 's DATE old son , PERSON .

Early in the morning of CARDINAL DATE , NORP military forces started to shell the village . Their neighbour 's house was completely destroyed by a direct hit . The applicant 's family and CARDINAL displaced people from ORG went down into the basement located in their courtyard , under a garage . They remained there for the whole of DATE and the following night .

On TIME the applicant 's son PERSON was wounded by shrapnel . The applicant saw CARDINAL injuries on her son 's body – one to his head and CARDINAL on the left side of his chest . There were no medicines in the cellar and no one could give medical assistance .

NORP Some time later , a neighbour told them that the residents would be allowed to leave through a “ corridor , ” although they did not know which direction that would be . The applicant and her family , including her wounded son , climbed onto the cart attached to their neighbour 's tractor .

NORP They drove towards the nearest way out of the village , leading to the village of GPE . When they arrived there , there were already a lot of people – CARDINAL in the applicant 's estimate . No one was allowed to get closer than QUANTITY from the roadblock , otherwise the servicemen fired in the air . The applicant and others spent DATE in the open .

During TIME CARDINAL DATE , a group of NORP militiamen came from the direction of the roadblock and took the people into the courtyard of a large empty house that was situated nearby . They told them to wait there .

The applicant 's son died of his wounds early in the morning on DATE . He was buried in the courtyard of the house .

The applicant and others remained in that house until TIME on DATE , when they were all allowed to pass through to ORG . On DATE she returned to ORG and found her house partially destroyed .

On DATE the district civil registration office recorded the death of PERSON , born in DATE , on DATE in ORG .

The applicant was aware of criminal proceedings in relation to the events of DATE . At some point , she was taken by the local police officer to ORG , where she testified to some investigators about the death of her son and described his injuries . After the interview , she was assured that she would be informed of the outcome of the proceedings .

NORP In DATE the applicant had learned from other residents of the village that the investigation had been closed .

PERSON ( applicant DATE ) submitted a copy of the death certificate issued by the district civil registration office on DATE recording the death of her sister , PERSON , on DATE in ORG . According to the documents from the investigation file , she had been granted victim status in the proceedings in DATE ( see below ) .

Makhmud PERSON ( applicant CARDINAL ) submitted copies of death certificates issued by the district civil registration office in relation to his mother and step - mother respectively . PERSON , aged DATE , had died in Achkhoy - Martan on DATE from a piercing wound to the abdomen . The death was recorded on DATE . PERSON , aged DATE , had died in ORG on DATE from numerous shrapnel wounds to the head and second and third degree burns . Her death was recorded on DATE . According to the file , PERSON was granted victim status in the criminal case in DATE ( see below ) .

In their observations dated DATE , the Government did not dispute the injuries and deaths of the applicants and of their relatives . They presented the following description of the events . Referring to the information obtained by the criminal investigation , they stated that on TIME DATE , a group of guerrilla fighters under the command of field commander PERSON had entered ORG . According to information supplied by intelligence sources , the members of the illegal armed groups were well trained and equipped . They were armed with large - calibre weapons , grenade launchers and mortars . They also had armoured vehicles . Understanding that federal forces were pursuing them and that fighting was inevitable , they proceeded to occupy the local residents ' stone and brick houses . In the cellars of those houses they prepared firing points and established fortified defence positions . The local residents remaining in the village were used as a “ human shield ” .

After ORG had been surrounded , reconnaissance groups tried to enter the village and ensure that the fighters were disarmed and detained . However , they were met with fire and CARDINAL of the groups found itself surrounded .

The command corps of the operation took a decision to evacuate the civilians . Information about the opening of an exit corridor was delivered to the local residents between CARDINAL and TIME on DATE through a loudspeaker . CARDINAL control points were set up to allow for filtering of the population and checking of identity documents in order to prevent the fighters forcibly exiting the village .

At the same time the commanders of the operation decided to employ artillery and attack aircraft . This was done in view of the numerical superiority of the fighters and in order to prevent their grouping together and breaking through the army 's position . After the strikes started the members of the illegal armed groups , unwilling to surrender , continued their resistance and used local residents as cover . They did not allow the federal authorities to organise the evacuation of the remaining population . Many residents were leaving ORG on their own , using their personal vehicles . In the process they were caught in the crossfire between the fighters and the federal forces and were wounded or killed .

NORP The operation lasted DATE . It involved the use of firearms , artillery and attack aircraft employed with pinpoint precision at the places where the fighters were grouped . The majority of the armed group ( CARDINAL fighters ) were killed , the remaining number dispersed , and the village was freed .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of ORG initiated a criminal investigation into the events of DATE in ORG .

On DATE the investigation was transferred to the military prosecutor 's office of ORG ( “ the military prosecutor 's office ” ) . The case file was assigned the number DATE .

It appears that in DATE the investigators interviewed most of the applicants or members of their families , as well as other people who had been in LOC at the time . The applicants submitted that during the interviews they had been assured that the authorities would keep them informed of the progress of the investigation and that they would be granted compensation .

NORP Per the submitted documents , the investigation established that as a result of the operation CARDINAL civilians had been killed and CARDINAL wounded . CARDINAL of the applicants ' relatives were listed among the dead ( not including the second applicant 's son and CARDINAL relatives of the CARDINAL applicant ) . The investigation listed QUANTITY of the applicants as wounded ( applicants CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) , as well as some of their relatives , for example , PERSON ( the seventh applicant 's daughter ) . CARDINAL people were granted victim status in the proceedings , including QUANTITY of the applicants ( applicants CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL ) . In addition , relatives of applicants CARDINAL , DATE and DATE were also interviewed and granted victim status . These steps were taken DATE .

NORP On DATE the military prosecutor 's office terminated the proceedings in criminal case no . DATE . The decision referred to a large number of documents and to the statements of CARDINAL of witnesses , including local residents , servicemen from various units and commanding officers . The decision heavily relied on the results of the military expert 's report of DATE . That report established that the actions of the command corps involved in the special operation in GPE - Yurt on DATE had been appropriate to the circumstances and in line with applicable laws . On this basis , the investigation concluded that the actions of the command corps had been absolutely necessary and proportionate to the resistance put up by the fighters . It found an absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the servicemen of the NORP forces . By the same decision the victim status of CARDINAL people was withdrawn . The people in question were to be informed of the possibility of seeking redress through civil proceedings .

The applicants submitted that , at that time , they and other victims had not been informed about the termination of the proceedings . It appears that nothing happened until DATE , when the applicants learnt , mostly by hearsay , that the proceedings had been terminated .

DATE , the majority of the applicants wrote to the military prosecutor 's office seeking to obtain information about the progress of the investigation in case no . DATE . They referred to the circumstances of the deaths and wounding of their family members and asked to be granted formal victim status in the proceedings and/or to be provided with a copy of such a decision if it had already been taken . CARDINAL applicants submitted copies of such letters ( save for applicants CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) .

NORP In response to these requests , DATE the military prosecutor 's office informed the applicants about the results of the military expert 's report , the termination of proceedings in criminal case no . DATE and the withdrawal of their victim status in DATE . The letters also confirmed that the investigation had established the deaths and injuries of which they had complained and informed them that they could apply to a civil court seeking to obtain compensation for damage . Some of these letters included a copy of the decision of DATE as an enclosure .

On DATE of the applicants ( not including applicants CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) lodged a complaint with the military court of ORG . In their complaint , they stressed that they had not been informed of the progress of the investigation for a long time and that only in DATE had the military prosecutor 's office forwarded a copy of the decision of DATE to them . The applicants challenged the conclusions of the investigation as to the reasonableness and lawfulness of the use of lethal force which had resulted in numerous casualties . They referred to evidence which , in their view , contradicted the conclusion reached by the military prosecutor 's office . They also questioned the thoroughness of the investigation in criminal case no . DATE . In particular , the applicants noted that the deaths of PERSON , son of PERSON ( applicant CARDINAL ) and of CARDINAL relatives of PERSON ( applicant DATE ) had not been recorded by the investigation and that these people had not been mentioned in the list of people who had died in GPE in DATE . They submitted copies of CARDINAL death certificates and a written statement by PERSON . They also pointed out that the investigation had failed to review the question of damage caused to the residents ' property . They asked the court to quash the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings and to oblige the military prosecutor 's office to resume the investigation in the criminal case concerning deaths and injuries to civilians , to grant each of them victim status in the criminal proceedings and to issue them with copies of the relevant decisions .

On DATE the applicants ' complaint was forwarded to the ORG . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and sent the investigation back to the military prosecutor 's office . By that time , the investigation had already been resumed by a decision of the military prosecutor 's office dated DATE made with reference to the conclusions drawn by ORG in the ORG case ( cited above ) . The case file was assigned a new DATE CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINALD. It was conducted with reference to Articles CARDINAL part CARDINAL ( e ) ( murder committed by universally dangerous means ) and CARDINAL ( abuse of authority ) of LAW .

DATE ten of the applicants were interviewed and were also granted victim status : applicants CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The transcripts of interviews and decisions to grant victim status were submitted by the Government to the ORG ( except in respect of applicant CARDINAL ) . According to the Government , relatives of applicants CARDINAL and CARDINAL were also interviewed at that time and granted victim status , but the relevant statements were not submitted . The applicants confirmed their previous statements in relation to the events that took place DATE and about the deaths of their relatives and their injuries . All of the applicants stated that they had applied for administrative compensation for their housing and property which had been destroyed , but that they had not received any .

On DATE the investigation was closed , with the same conclusions as in DATE , on the basis of Article CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW . The decision confirmed the deaths of DATE and the wounding of CARDINAL local residents , without listing their names . An additional expert report was produced by ORG of ORG in DATE , which found that the actions of the command corps in planning and executing the operation had been reasonable and in line with the domestic law . No copy of that report has been disclosed to the applicants or submitted to ORG . In particular , the decision stated in this respect :

“ ... The actions of the fighters ( the occupation of ORG by a group of fighters numbering CARDINAL persons , the fighters establishing strongholds in the houses , [ their ] fierce resistance and their using local residents as a “ human shield ” ) ... represented a real danger to the lives and health of the local residents , and could have entailed unnecessary losses by the federal forces ...

These circumstances required the taking of adequate measures by the command corps in order to prevent the danger of armed assault against the citizens and their lives and property ( residents of ORG and military servicemen ) , in addition to [ the need to safeguard ] the interests of society and the ORG which are protected by law ( the reinstatement of the constitutional order in GPE ) . After issuing a preliminary notification and giving the civilians a real opportunity to leave the village , the subsequent extermination of pockets of the fighters ' resistance by means of artillery and attack aircraft , employing area - point method ( зонально-объектовый метод ) , did not exclude deaths among civilians . At the same time , the use of such means of extermination was consistent with the circumstances and with the measures taken in order to minimise losses among civilians . The actions of the command corps ( commanders ) during the preparation and carrying out of the special operation aimed at the liberation of LOC DATE were in line with the requirements of relevant field manuals , internal regulations and instructions , were lawful and did not contain elements of criminally prescribed actions ” .

NORP The decision to grant victim status to CARDINAL people was quashed . The military prosecutor of ORG in LOC ( UGA ) forwarded the decision to the head of ORG and asked him to identify the victims ' places of residence and to inform them about the closure of the investigation , as well as the possibility of seeking compensation through the civil courts .

The Government submitted that “ the interested parties ” had been informed of the decision in question on DATE when it had been adopted . The applicants insisted that they had learnt of the decision from the ORG 's observations of DATE . They had not appealed against it .

In their ORG application form of DATE CARDINAL of the applicants ( applicants CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) complained that there had been a violation of their right to property in that their houses and other possessions had been destroyed . No other details or documents were submitted at that time . In DATE the applicants submitted the documents detailed below in response to the ORG 's observations . It is unclear whether these documents have ever been submitted to any national authority .

In DATE , applicants CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and the ninth applicant 's husband obtained certificates from the village administration concerning the state of their houses . These certificates noted the destruction of their houses and indicated the costs of repair , including building materials and , in certain cases , construction costs .

In DATE , applicants CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE drew up lists of their property and household items destroyed in DATE . Each list was attested by CARDINAL witnesses who were local residents . These applicants also submitted estimates of the replacement costs of their household goods which had been compiled in DATE . In DATE and DATE , applicants CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE noted their expenses in relation to their relatives ' funerals .

Until DATE , criminal - law matters were governed by LAW the NORP Federalist Socialist Republic . From DATE , the old Code was replaced by LAW ( “ ORG ” ) .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG defines the procedural status of a victim in criminal proceedings and lists the rights and obligations vested in that person . It provides that the victim has the right to acquaint him or herself with the entire case file after the closing of the investigation . Article CARDINAL also stipulates that the victims should be informed of procedural decisions to open or close criminal proceedings , grant or to refuse to grant victim status , and to adjourn proceedings . Copies of these decisions should be sent to the victims . The victims also have access to any decisions to order expert reports and to the conclusions of such reports ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG lays down a judicial procedure for the consideration of complaints . An order of the investigator or prosecutor to refuse to institute criminal proceedings or to terminate a case , and other orders and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede the citizen 's access to justice , may be appealed against to a local district court which is empowered to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions . No time - limits are set for the lodging of such complaints .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG 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 interests of the parties to the criminal proceedings or prejudice the investigation . Divulging information about the private lives of parties to criminal proceedings without their permission is prohibited .


The applicants are PERSON ( “ AJ ” ) , Mr PERSON ( “ GPE ) , PERSON , Mr PERSON and ORG . The third applicant is the widow of Mr PERSON ( “ JK ” ) , who was the first and the second applicant ’s brother . The fourth and the fifth applicant are Mr PERSON children . The applicants are all NORP nationals , born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They reside in GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON and PERSON , respectively . The first applicant represents the other applicants before the ORG .

In proceedings before ORG ( kihlakunnanoikeus , häradsrätten ) in DATE ORG , JK and PERSON unsuccessfully contested the validity of a will drawn up by their parents PERSON and ORG and allegedly amended without the plaintiffs’ knowledge . In DATE the GPE appeal was dismissed by ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) of ORG and in DATE leave to appeal was refused by ORG ( korkein oikeus ) . A procedural complaint and request for annulment were refused by ORG in decisions rendered in extraordinary proceedings in DATE ( by justices P , T and others ) as well as on DATE ( by justice T and others ) .

In proceedings before ORG in DATE ORG , ORG and PERSON unsuccessfully contested the manner of proving the will . Their appeal was dismissed in DATE , and ORG refused leave to appeal on DATE . They continued to petition various other bodies in vain , accusing various judges and officials of offences in office when dealing with the matter : for instance , in an attempt to acquire real property for himself the local chief of police ( VJ ) had changed the wording of the will before having it registered ; when registering the will CARDINAL judge had unlawfully accepted the amendment to it ; when the will had been proven another judge had unlawfully accepted that the chief of police could represent the surviving testator , although the latter had been legally incapacitated and should have been represented by a guardian ad litem ; CARDINAL and a fourth judge had unlawfully rejected ORG ’s , ORG and ORG actions of DATE and DATE for contesting the will and the manner in which it had been proven ; and a subordinate of the chief of police ( EH ) eventually appointed guardian ad litem had unlawfully failed to safeguard his ward ’s interests .

CARDINAL officials lodged a criminal complaint against ORG , PERSON and PERSON . The public prosecutor brought charges in DATE , accusing them of continued public defamation and false denunciation starting in DATE . ORG ( raastuvanoikeus , rådstuvurätten ) held hearings on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL and DATE in this case and in CARDINAL other cases , all having been joined . In the second case ORG charged ORG with various counts of defamation ; in the third case ORG charged PERSON and EH with slander etc . ; in the fourth case ORG charged PERSON with false denunciation ; in the fifth case ORG , JK and PERSON charged PERSON and GPE with fraud etc . ; and in the sixth case ORG charged ORG , JK and GPE with false denunciation . On DATE ORG , NORP and PERSON were convicted , sentenced to conditional imprisonment and ordered to pay damages and costs . Their convictions comprised CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE individualised counts , respectively , whereas their own charges were all rejected . ORG found , inter alia , that the defendants must have known that the complainants had not committed the crimes imputed to them in a wide public context during a period of DATE . The accusations had been particularly insulting towards DATE , even though it had been established in a number of decisions that the complainants had not committed unlawful acts or abused their respective positions . The accusations had been capable of subjecting the complainants to contempt or of impeding their careers . ORG refused ORG ’s , ORG and ORG request for a hearing or a remittal of the case . By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG acquitted them on certain counts but increased their respective sentences to CARDINAL months’ , QUANTITY months’ and QUANTITY months’ conditional imprisonment . They were further ordered to pay an accessory fine in the respective amounts of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and FAC . In DATE JK died . On DATE ORG ( justices P , T and others ) refused leave to appeal .

In DATE the Prosecuting Counsel of ORG brought criminal proceedings against ORG , PERSON and PERSON for continued false denunciation of a former judge involved in the civil proceedings regarding the will . At an oral hearing on DATE before ORG as the first instance , the Prosecuting Counsel amended the indictment . The defendants contested the charges and later requested a re - hearing . On DATE ORG convicted all CARDINAL defendants of continued public defamation committed in DATE and sentenced them to a fine in the respective amounts of FIM CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and FIM CARDINAL,CARDINAL . They were also ordered to pay compensation for moral damage . ORG found that the public accusations against the former judge had been capable of impeding his career as a member of the Bar . On DATE ORG ( justices P , T and others ) struck out the charges against the deceased JK , quashed ORG ’s and ORG convictions in part and reduced their fines to ORG and FIM CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

Meanwhile , in DATE ORG , NORP and PERSON had brought a further civil action before ORG , contesting the will and the manner in which it had been registered . This action was also unsuccessful . The appeal of ORG , GPE and GPE ’s successors was dismissed in DATE . They were refused leave to appeal to ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG also refused ORG ’s , ORG and ORG further procedural complaint and annulment requests relating to the first set of criminal proceedings and some of the civil proceedings . In his memorandum the référendaire stated that in order to avoid bias the complaint and requests could not be presented to the panel of ORG which was dealing with the CARDINAL criminal cases against ORG , PERSON and PERSON .


No violation of Art. 6;No violation of P1-1

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant sued a private company for salary arrears .

By judgment of DATE , ORG in ORG awarded the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) against the defendant company .

The defendant company appealed .

On DATE , both parties being present in the court - room , ORG adjourned the hearing until DATE , which was noted in the minutes . The parties were also notified about the hearing of CARDINAL DATE by post , in accordance with the domestic law . However , the court made a mistake in the defendant company 's address , which never received the summons .

On DATE the ORG of Arkhangelsk , in the absence of the defendant company 's representative , upheld the judgment on appeal .

The defendant company applied for supervisory review of the above judgments . On DATE a judge in ORG granted it leave for supervisory review . On DATE the Presidium of ORG set aside the judgment of DATE and ordered a re - examination of the case by ORG on the grounds that the defendant company had not been informed about the hearing of DATE . The ORG found that though the defendant company 's representative was present in the court - room when the district court adjourned the hearing to DATE , the defendant company could not be considered as duly informed about it .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL .

NORP The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at the material time is summed up in the ORG 's judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

Under LAW , in force at the material time , parties to the proceedings are to be summoned to a hearing by a letter sent by registered mail with an acknowledgment of receipt , by court summons with an acknowledgment of receipt , by telegram , by phone or fax or by any other means which can guarantee a record of the fact that the summons was sent and was received by the party .


Preliminary objection rejected;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

Mr PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE , is a postmaster . He is a haemophiliac and has received numerous blood transfusions .

A test carried out in DATE showed that the applicant had been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) . Since DATE he has been classified as having reached stage II of the CARDINAL stages on the scale of ORG .

On DATE the applicant submitted a preliminary application for compensation to the Minister for ORG , ORG . He sought MONEY ( FRF ) in compensation for the medical disorders of all kinds he had suffered on account of his infection with HIV . His application was rejected on DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON filed an application in ORG for FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the ORG ’s failure to take appropriate measures to prevent his becoming infected with HIV .

On DATE the applicant made an urgent application to the President of ORG for an expert report . This application was granted on DATE . The expert report was filed on DATE .

On DATE the case was referred to the ORG d’Etat , which then designated ORG to deal with it . The application was registered with that court on DATE .

On DATE the Minister of Health lodged his defence pleadings .

After holding a hearing on DATE , ORG ruled in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE that the ORG was liable for the applicant ’s infection and ordered it to pay him compensation of ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE the Minister for ORG appealed against the above judgment to ORG . On DATE he lodged supplementary pleadings .

On DATE the applicant lodged pleadings in which he requested the court to dismiss the appeal and made a cross - appeal for the ORG to be ordered to pay him compensation of ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE and DATE pleadings were lodged by the Minister of Health and the applicant respectively .

On DATE ORG and Haemophiliacs infected with HIV informed ORG that PERSON PERSON had accepted the ORG ’s offer of compensation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , ORG of the ORG d’Etat gave CARDINAL landmark judgments , fixing CARDINAL DATE as the start of the period of the ORG ’s liability and awarding the victims compensation at a flat rate of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG filed an application and CARDINAL memorials seeking an order requiring the ORG to refund it all payments made or to be made to PERSON PERSON on account of his infection with HIV . It also claimed interest at the statutory rate .

After holding a hearing on DATE , ORG ruled on DATE that , in accordance with the above - mentioned case - law of the ORG d’Etat ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG should be held liable for the applicant ’s infection . It assessed the amount of compensation due to the applicant at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . It deducted the offer of FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL made by ORG and Haemophiliacs ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which included the FRF CARDINAL awarded by ORG and ORG CARDINAL allocated by ORG . It thus increased the compensation payable by the ORG from ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The court calculated the interest on the outstanding balance , that is ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , from DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON appealed on points of law to the PERSON d’Etat , complaining about the method of calculation used by ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON lodged an application ( no . CARDINAL ) with ORG . On DATE , having declared the application admissible , the Commission adopted a report pursuant to LAW noting that the parties had reached agreement on a friendly settlement ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s appeal admissible . He was then informed that his appeal had been referred to the President of ORG of the ORG d’Etat who would examine it .

The Compensation Fund for Transfusion Patients and GPE and the Minister of Health filed their observations on DATE and DATE respectively .

In the meantime , on DATE , Mr PERSON had written to the President of ORG of the ORG d’Etat , which was dealing with the case , drawing his attention to the length and protractedness of the proceedings and the urgency of the case given his state of health . He received no reply .

On DATE the applicant lodged a further application ( no . CARDINAL ) with the Commission , which was registered on DATE , complaining that the proceedings were still pending before the ORG d’Etat .

On DATE the ORG d’Etat gave judgment quashing ORG judgment of DATE on the ground that , contrary to the ORG d’Etat ’s relevant case - law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it had deducted from the amounts the ORG was required to pay PERSON PERSON the offer of compensation in the event of Aids being diagnosed made by ORG and GPE . The ORG d’Etat remitted the case to ORG without applying section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , which would have allowed it to determine the merits of the case without remitting it to ORG .

The case was remitted on DATE .

In a letter of DATE the senior registrar at ORG informed the applicant that his case had been remitted to that court by the ORG d’Etat and invited him to submit his observations . The applicant ’s observations were registered at the court registry on DATE .

In separate proceedings the applicant had submitted a claim to ORG and Haemophiliacs , set up by LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG awarded him compensation of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , of which ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL was payable in CARDINAL equal DATE instalments and ORG CARDINAL if and when Aids was diagnosed . The ORG deducted from this offer the FRF CARDINAL paid out by ORG and the FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL awarded by ORG .

On DATE ORG paid Mr PERSON CARDINAL , which was the first DATE instalment .

After several judgments of CARDINAL DATE in which ORG had ruled that compensation payments should not be made in instalments , the applicant received , on DATE , the balance of the first part of the compensation , that is ORG CARDINAL .

The Act of DATE making miscellaneous social - welfare provisions set up special machinery for the compensation of haemophiliacs and transfusion patients who had been infected following injections of blood products . Section CARDINAL provides :

“ I. Victims of damage resulting from infection with the human immunodeficiency virus caused by transfusion of blood products or injection of blood derivatives carried out within the territory of the NORP Republic shall be compensated in the manner set out below .

II . ...

III . Full compensation for the damage defined in subsection I shall be provided by ORG , having legal personality , presided over by a serving or retired divisional president or judge of ORG and administered by a compensation board .

IV . In their claims for compensation , victims or their heirs shall provide proof of their infection with the human immunodeficiency virus and of the transfusion of blood products or injections of blood derivatives .

Victims or their heirs shall communicate to the ORG all the information in their possession .

Within DATE of the receipt of a claim , a period which may be extended at the request of the victim or his heirs , the ORG shall consider whether the conditions for payment of compensation have been fulfilled . It shall investigate the circumstances under which the victim was infected and make any necessary inquiries , which may not be resisted on grounds of professional secrecy .

V. The Fund shall be required to make an offer of compensation to any victim referred to in subsection I within a time - limit laid down by decree , which may not exceed DATE from DATE on which the ORG receives full proof of the damage ...

PERSON . NORP The victim shall inform the Fund of any judicial proceedings pending . If legal proceedings are brought , the victim shall inform the court of his application to the Fund .

VII . ...

ORG . The victim shall not be entitled to take legal action against ORG unless his claim for compensation has been dismissed , no offer has been made to him within the time - limit referred to in the first paragraph of subsection V , or he has not accepted an offer made to him . Proceedings shall be brought in ORG .

ORG . The Fund shall be subrogated , for an amount no higher than the sums paid out , to the victim ’s rights against the person liable for the damage and against persons required , for whatever reason , to make full or partial reparation for that damage , within the limits of those ORG liabilities . However , the ORG may institute proceedings on the basis of that subrogation only where the damage is attributable to negligence .

The ORG may intervene in proceedings in the criminal courts , even if it does not do so until the appeal stage , where the victim or his heirs have claimed compensation as a civil party in proceedings pending against the person or persons responsible for the damage defined in subsection I. In such cases it shall be considered a full party to the proceedings and may have recourse to all the remedies available in law .

If the acts which caused the damage have given rise to criminal proceedings , the civil court shall not be required to defer its decision until there has been a final decision by the criminal court .

X. Unless otherwise provided , the provisions governing the implementation of this section shall be laid down in a decree issued after consultation of the ORG d’Etat .

ORG . NORP ...

ORG . The Compensation Fund ’s sources of revenue shall be specified in a subsequent Act .

XIII . ...

ORG . ... ”

In CARDINAL judgments of DATE ORG of the ORG d’Etat decided that “ the ORG was wholly liable in respect of persons who were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus following transfusion of non - heat - treated blood products DATE and DATE ” .

In a series of landmark judgments of CARDINAL DATE the ORG d’Etat ruled that payment of the sum offered by ORG and Haemophiliacs in the event of Aids being diagnosed was “ a latent possibility subject to the onset of the disease ” and that accordingly ORG had “ made an error of law in deducting it from the sums it ordered the ORG to pay in compensation for the same damage ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At the material time ORG contained , inter alia , the following provisions :

“ Except in cases concerning public works , proceedings may not be instituted in ORG otherwise than in the form of an appeal against a decision ; such an appeal shall be lodged within DATE of the notification or the publication of the contested decision .

Where no reply is forthcoming from the relevant authority for DATE , that silence is to be construed as a decision rejecting the complaint .

“ The President of ORG or of ORG , or a judge delegated by CARDINAL of them , may , where the existence of an obligation can not seriously be contested , award an advance to a creditor who has filed an application on the merits in the court in question . He may , even of his own motion , make the payment of the advance subject to the lodging of a security . ”

“ Immediately after the application instituting the proceedings has been registered by the registry , the president of the court or , in GPE , the president of the division to which the application has been transmitted , shall appoint a rapporteur .

“ Where CARDINAL of the parties or the administrative department has been asked to submit observations and has not complied with the time - limit laid down pursuant to Articles R.CARDINAL and ORG of this LAW , the president of the court or division shall issue a formal notice to comply .

In the event of force majeure , a final extension of time may be granted .

If the formal notice to comply has no effect or if the final time - limit given is not complied with , the court shall give judgment . ”

“ Where a final notice to comply relates to an administrative department of the ORG , it shall be sent to the authority with competence to represent the ORG ; in other cases it shall be sent to the party or his representative if he has appointed one . ”

“ A member of ORG or ORG may be assigned by the competent court or by the latter ’s president to carry out any investigative measures other than those provided for in DATE of this chapter . ”

Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE applies to all proceedings pending at the date of its publication . It lays down provisions for the implementation of section QUANTITY of the Act of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) :

“ Part II

Provisions relating to actions seeking to establish liability brought against those responsible for the damage defined in subsection I of section CARDINAL of the aforementioned LAW DATE

In order to bring the action by subrogation provided for in subsection ORG of section CARDINAL of the aforementioned Act of DATE , the ORG may intervene in proceedings in any of the administrative or ordinary courts , even if it does not do so until the appeal stage . In such cases it shall be considered a full party to the proceedings and may have recourse to all the remedies available in law .

The registries of the administrative and ordinary courts shall send the ORG by registered post with recorded delivery a copy of the procedural documents submitting to those courts any initial or additional claim for compensation of the damage defined in subsection I of section CARDINAL of the aforementioned LAW DATE .

Within DATE of receipt of the letter referred to in LAW , the ORG shall inform the president of the relevant court by ordinary mail whether or not it has received a claim for compensation with the same purpose and , if so , what stage the procedure has reached . It shall also state whether or not it intends to intervene in the proceedings .

Where the victim has accepted an offer made by ORG , the latter shall send the president of the court a copy of the documents in which the offer was made and by which it was accepted . The Fund shall , where relevant , indicate the stage reached in proceedings instituted in ORG under the provisions of Part I of this decree and forward any judgment delivered by that court .

The registry shall notify the parties of the information communicated by the ORG .

The registry shall send the ORG copies of the decisions given at first instance and , where relevant , on appeal in proceedings in which the ORG has not intervened .

The provisions of ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL shall be applicable to cases pending on the date of entry into force of [ this ] decree ... ”

On CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON lodged an application with the Commission , registered on CARDINAL DATE under file no . CARDINAL , in which he complained of the length of the compensation proceedings and relied on Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Convention . On DATE the Commission adopted a report in which it noted , pursuant to LAW :

On DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant was prepared to accept the sum of CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) NORP francs ( ORG ) for non - pecuniary damage , to which were to be added ORG CARDINAL for the costs and expenses he had incurred before the Commission , the whole to be paid within DATE of the adoption of the ORG ’s report . He also requested the payment of interest in the event of delayed settlement . He repeated these proposals in a letter of DATE .

In a letter of DATE , received on DATE , the Agent of the Government informed the ORG that the Government were prepared to agree to a settlement based on these proposals .

On DATE the Commission noted that the parties had reached agreement on the terms of a settlement . It also stated the opinion , having regard to LAW b ) of the LAW , that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the LAW .

The text of the applicant ’s declaration that he accepted the friendly settlement , which bears his signature , reads as follows :

“ I acknowledge that the payment of these sums will constitute full and final compensation in respect of all the damage alleged in my application and will likewise cover all the ORG fees and other costs I have incurred in this case .

I therefore agree to withdraw from these proceedings and to waive the right to bring any further proceedings on this account against ORG in the NORP and international courts . ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1 (composition of the State security court);Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 (other complaints);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was a civil engineer and a partner in a company . He was also acting as an automobile commissioner in his spare time .

In the course of an operation carried out against the activities of an illegal organisation , namely the PERSON ( ORG ) , the applicant was arrested and taken into custody together with Mr PERSON while they were leaving the applicant ’s house on DATE . It appears from the arrest protocol that the police officers were following PERSON PERSON who was suspected of being a member of that organisation .

On DATE , the applicant ’s house was searched . According to the search and seizure protocol drafted by the police officers and signed by the applicant and his wife , the police did not find anything illegal or incriminating .

DATE and DATE , the applicant was interrogated and confronted with a number of suspects . The applicant claims that he was beaten and given electric shocks during this time .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG who did not find any signs of illtreatment on the applicant ’s body . The report mentioned that the applicant complained of a bruise on his left eye and of having been given electric shocks .

On DATE , the applicant was brought before the prosecutor when he denied the accusations against him and claimed to have given his statements in custody under duress . He was then brought before a judge at ORG who ordered his detention on remand .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant , along with CARDINAL other suspects , accusing him of providing ORG with financial support by forging licences and plates for stolen cars and , subsequently , selling them . The prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced for membership of an illegal organisation under LAW .

On an unspecified date the criminal proceedings against the applicant and CARDINAL other accused commenced before ORG .

During the proceedings the applicant refuted the accusations against him . In particular , he challenged the authenticity of the documents in the case file claiming that some of them had been replaced . In support of his argument , he claimed , inter alia , that the search and seizure protocol was torn and that therefore the police had drafted a new one and made him sign under his wife ’s name . In his final observations on the merits , the applicant also stated that he had been forced to sign his statements in police custody .

On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation , under LAW , and sentenced him to MONEY imprisonment . In its decision , the court noted , inter alia , that there was no evidence that the applicant had taken part in any armed or unarmed activity of the organisation in order to be considered a member of that organisation . However , the court was not convinced that the applicant did not know that , through his constant financial relationship with Mr PERSON , he had been helping the organisation .

On DATE the applicant appealed against this judgment . In his appellate petition , the applicant submitted , in particular , that the police documents relied upon by the prosecution did not reflect the truth . In this regard , he stated that the documents drafted by the police in Bursa were torn and replaced by the police in GPE . The applicant further claimed that he was coerced into signing the documents drafted by the police . Finally he pointed out that the police had not found a single book concerning political PERSON in his house .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court in so far as it concerned the applicant and quashed the remainder of the judgment .

The Government informed the ORG that on DATE ORG decided to defer the sentence of the applicant pursuant to LAW on ORG , Deferral of Procedure and Punishments .

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments : PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

By PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in the Official journal on DATE , ORG have been abolished .