As a secondary - school teacher of classics who has passed the agrégation ( the highest competitive examination for teachers ) , PERSON has been a civil servant in the ORG education service since DATE .

While working at the Paul Eluard Lower Secondary School at ORG ( département of LOC ) , he was sent on compulsory leave for DATE from DATE by a decision of the schools inspector for PERSON on DATE . The decision was based on LAW of CARDINAL DATE , which provides : “ Where the schools inspector … considers , in the light of a medical certificate or a report by a civil servant ’s superiors , that on account of the civil servant ’s physical or mental state , the children are exposed to immediate danger , he may send the civil servant concerned on compulsory leave for DATE on full salary . ”

On DATE the same inspector decided to suspend payment of the applicant ’s salary from DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON applied to ORG to quash the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and sought a stay of execution of the latter decision .

By CARDINAL decisions of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was sent on extended sick - leave from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and then from CARDINAL DATE to PERCENT DATE and on extended leave of absence from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE Mr GPE applied to the same court to quash those CARDINAL decisions .

The hearing took place on DATE . In a judgment of the same date ORG joined the CARDINAL applications , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and the one of DATE suspending payment of the applicant ’s salary , decided that there was no longer any need to rule on the application for a stay and dismissed the application to have the decisions of CARDINAL DATE quashed . The judgment read as follows :

As to the compulsory leave

Mr PERSON maintained that the headmaster ’s report on which the decision complained of was based had been drawn up on DATE , whereas the decision whereby he was sent on compulsory leave had not been issued until DATE . Serious incidents occurred on account of the teacher ’s lack of authority . While the headmaster said that Mr GPE ’s behaviour had jeopardised pupils’ safety , he did not , however , establish that he had taken the measures , including disciplinary measures , that were within his powers and which would have prevented the situation from becoming critical . Nor does it appear from the report produced that the facts were such as to justify applying LAW decree [ of DATE ] , which only applies in very specific circumstances that justify describing the danger to which the children are exposed as immediate …

As to the suspension of payment of salary

Although LAW decree [ no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ] of CARDINAL DATE authorises the administrative authorities to stop paying the salary of a civil servant on extended sick - leave or extended leave of absence who refuses to undergo the treatment and examinations his state dictates , it could not be applied to Mr GPE , who at the time when the impugned decision suspending payment of his salary was taken was not on extended sick - leave or extended leave of absence … ”

The applicant appealed to the ORG d’Etat on DATE . He sought to have the judgment of DATE quashed in so far as ORG had held that it was unnecessary to rule on the application for a stay of execution and had dismissed the application to quash the decisions of CARDINAL DATE .

According to the ORG , ORG filed observations on DATE , to which Mr PERSON replied on DATE . The applicant had produced new documents on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the case had been assigned to LAW the ORG d’Etat , on DATE a reporting judge had been appointed and on DATE a preparatory sitting had been held .

On DATE the ORG d’Etat held a hearing , and on CARDINAL DATE it delivered a judgment in which it dismissed the appeal .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG at Athis - Mons ( PERSON ) but he could not take up his duties until the appropriate medical board had ruled on his case . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to the Minister of ORG he asked the Minister to “ rule on his administrative position ” in respect of the period after CARDINAL DATE and sought payment of an advance on his salary .

On DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL applications with ORG . In CARDINAL of these he sought to have quashed the implicit refusal of his request for a review of his administrative position and for an advance on his salary , submitting that it was not normal for him to be on unpaid leave and that the medical board had not ruled on his case , thereby preventing him from taking up his duties at LOC at Athis - Mons . In the other application he sought a stay of execution of that implicit refusal , relying on his financial difficulties .

On DATE the President of ORG , taking the view that , according to LAW of ORG , ORG had no jurisdiction to hear the foregoing applications , ordered under LAW CARDINAL of the same code that the files should be sent to the President of ORG of the ORG d’Etat .

In an order of CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG of the ORG d’Etat designated ORG as the court that would hear the applications in question . The latter were registered in that court ’s registry on DATE .

On DATE the Director of ORG for GPE filed a pleading to which were appended CARDINAL decisions of DATE designed to resolve Mr PERSON ’s position . In the first decision the applicant ’s extended leave of absence was prolonged from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , and in the second he was reinstated in his post at ORG at Evry .

In his pleading in reply registered on DATE the applicant said that he had lodged a preliminary administrative appeal against the second of those decisions ( he was seeking reinstatement in the post at FAC at ORG , where he had last been posted ) .

In a further pleading registered on CARDINAL DATE the applicant “ confirm[ed ] ” that he was seeking to have both the aforementioned decisions quashed .

In a judgment of DATE ORG joined all the applications , dismissed that seeking to have the decisions of DATE quashed and decided that it was unnecessary to rule on those seeking to have quashed the implicit refusal of Mr PERSON ’s request for a review of his position and a stay of execution of that refusal .

On DATE the applicant appealed to the ORG d’Etat against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the ORG d’Etat decided to transfer the appeal to ORG . The decision read as follows :

“ By LAW decree [ no . CARDINAL ] of CARDINAL DATE , ‘ From DATE ORG shall have jurisdiction to rule on appeals against judgments of ORG on applications for judicial review of individual decisions taken in respect of civil and public servants.’ Mr GPE ’s … application , registered on DATE , whereby he is appealing against a judgment on an application for judicial review of decisions concerning his career as an agrégation - qualified secondary - school teacher , therefore falls within the jurisdiction of ORG .

Admittedly , Mr GPE maintained that the PERSON d’Etat had jurisdiction to hear his application in view of the link between it and [ the ] application … made by him on CARDINAL DATE [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] and LAW of ORG LAW provides : ‘ Where the PERSON d’Etat has before it a submission which it has jurisdiction to hear as the appellate court , it shall also have jurisdiction to entertain related submissions which would normally fall within the jurisdiction of an ORG of Appeal.’ There is , however , no link between the present application and the submissions in the application [ made on DATE ] .

The ORG d’Etat ’s decision of DATE was registered in ORG registry on DATE .

The hearing took place on DATE , and in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on the following grounds :

“ … by means of CARDINAL decisions of DATE the Director of ORG for GPE prolonged the applicant ’s extended leave of absence on full salary from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and reinstated him in his duties at the Paul Eluard Lower Secondary School at ORG with effect from DATE . Mr PERSON ’s applications seeking to have quashed and stayed the authorities’ implicit refusal to give a ruling on his position thus became devoid of purpose on DATE , the date of the judgment appealed against . The fact that he had not been assigned to any duties at the beginning of DATE in DATE and had not received any salary since DATE has no bearing in this connection … ”

On DATE Mr PERSON appealed on points of law to the ORG d’Etat against ORG judgment of DATE . The case is still pending .

A civil servant in post is entitled , inter alia , to extended sick - leave for a maximum period of DATE where it is established that he is suffering from an illness that makes it impossible for him to carry out his duties , requires prolonged treatment and care , is disabling and has been confirmed as serious . The civil servant remains on full salary for DATE and on CARDINAL salary for DATE . He also retains his entitlement to the full supplementary family allowance and the full residence allowance ( section GPE ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE making provisions governing the civil service ) .

He is also entitled to extended leave of absence for DATE on full salary and thereafter for DATE on CARDINAL salary if he is suffering from tuberculosis , mental illness , cancer or poliomyelitis . He retains his entitlement to the full supplementary family allowance and the full residence allowance . If the illness has been contracted in the course of his duties , the aforementioned periods are increased to DATE and DATE respectively . Extended leave of absence is normally granted only at the end of the full - salary period of extended sick - leave ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON ) .

Extended sick - leave and extended leave of absence are granted after a medical examination and authorisation from the appropriate medical board ( LAW no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE on the appointment of civilian and military medical boards , physical - fitness requirements for admission to posts in the public service and rules on sick - leave for civil servants ) .

Where a departmental head considers , in the light of a medical certificate or a report by a superior , that a civil servant ’s state of health might justify his being sent on extended sick - leave or extended leave of absence , he may take steps in order to have the person concerned undergo a medical examination ( LAW ) .

A person on extended sick - leave or extended leave of absence may not resume his duties at the end of or during that leave unless he is declared fit after a medical examination by an approved specialist and with the agreement of the appropriate medical board ( Article CARDINAL of the decree ) .

Articles R. CARDINAL and NORP CARDINAL of ORG Code provide :

Article R. CARDINAL

“ Jurisdiction to hear all individual disputes , including those over pecuniary matters , which affect civil servants or employees of the ORG and of other public entities or authorities … shall be vested in ORG within whose territorial jurisdiction the place of work of the civil servant or employee affected by the impugned decision is situated .

If the decision in question concerns an appointment or entails a change of posting , jurisdiction shall be determined by the location of the new posting .

If the decision in question concerns a dismissal , a retirement or any other measure entailing termination of service , or if it concerns a former civil servant or employee , or a civil servant or employee without a posting on the date when the impugned decision was taken , jurisdiction shall be determined by the location of the civil servant ’s last posting .

Article R. CARDINAL

“ Where an Administrative Court of Appeal or Administrative Court is seised of a case which it considers to be within the jurisdiction of an administrative court other than the ORG d’Etat , its president shall without delay forward the file to the President of ORG of the ORG d’Etat , who shall settle the issue of jurisdiction and assign the case to be tried in whole or in part by the court that he shall declare to have jurisdiction . ”


DES FOURS WALDERODE v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

The applicant , Mr PERSON Fours Walderode , was a NORP and NORP national . He was born in DATE and died on DATE . On DATE the applicant 's widow , PERSON , took her late husband 's place in the proceedings before the ORG .

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

The applicant 's stepmother and his CARDINAL stepbrothers , all NORP nationals , owned real estate in former GPE . In DATE the property was confiscated under Presidential Decrees nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which entered into force on DATE and DATE respectively .

The applicant 's stepmother died in DATE leaving her real estate to the applicant , and conferring the succession rights of her deceased sons on the applicant . She had never acquired NORP citizenship .

The applicant left GPE in DATE , thereby forfeiting his NORP citizenship , and returned in DATE . He was granted NORP citizenship in DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim for restitution of the property confiscated from his stepmother and stepbrothers under Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and which had been sold by his father before the Second World War . He referred to LAW of DATE , claiming that he had inherited the property .

On DATE the GPE nad ORG , referring to the documentary evidence , dismissed his claim on the ground that his stepmother and stepbrothers had not been loyal to the NORP State during the NORP occupation and had not acquired NORP citizenship after the Second World War . It found , with reference to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , that the applicant was not the owner of the property , as his stepmother and stepbrothers had not satisfied the requirements for restitution , and that the applicant 's claim in respect of his father 's former property fell outside the scope of the restitution legislation .

On DATE ORG , having assessed a substantial amount of documentary evidence and having heard the parties to the dispute , upheld ORG decision . It stated , inter alia , that LAW of DATE an heir acquired an estate only upon its distribution ; thus the dates of the acquisition of the estate and the death of a testator were different . In fact , from the death of a testator until the time of distribution of the estate , the property was to be regarded as hereditas iacens . According to the court , real estate could be lawfully confiscated in the period between the death of the testator and the time of acceptance of the estate by an heir . The court held that the property at issue had been confiscated ex lege by Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL from the applicant 's stepbrothers , NORP nationals , after they had died but whilst they had still been the notional owners of the estate . As the original owners , including the applicant 's stepmother , had not reacquired NORP citizenship as provided for in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , the applicant could not be considered to be entitled to restitution .

On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional appeal by the applicant as unsubstantiated , stating in particular that , under LAW of DATE , which had been applicable at the relevant time , an heir acquired the estate upon its distribution . In the present case the time of acquisition of the estate and the death of the testator did not fall within the same period . In order to transfer the estate to an heir , special proceedings before the national courts had to be instituted of the court 's own motion . If such proceedings were not instituted , the estate was hereditas iacens until delivery of a court judgment . Heirs who wished to acquire the estate had to submit an application within the framework of those proceedings . The estate was considered to remain in the possession of the testator until acquired by an heir . The court observed that , in the present case , the confiscation had taken place when the applicant 's stepbrothers died . However , the estate had not yet been administered by the national authorities and , therefore , the applicant had not acquired the property at issue . Moreover , as the stepbrothers had not been entitled to claim restitution of the property under LAW , and since the applicant 's stepmother had been of NORP origin and had never acquired NORP citizenship , the applicant himself was not entitled to claim restitution pursuant to LAW .

( a ) In DATE the applicant instituted inheritance proceedings in GPE in respect of the property claimed in the above restitution proceedings . On DATE CARDINAL certificates of succession were issued to the effect that the applicant was the universal heir of his stepbrothers .

( b ) On DATE the relevant NORP authority issued a document certifying that the applicant 's stepbrothers had not served in the ORG .

( c ) The applicant was the owner of real estate in ORG . This was confiscated from him under Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . In DATE the former local authority acknowledged the confiscation and granted him leave to appeal to ORG .

( d ) On DATE ORG , considering the applicant 's communication ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) concerning the ORG real estate , held that LAW , read in conjunction with LAW , had been violated by GPE .


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

On DATE the applicant lent to ORG , a company in GPE , MONEY ( ORG ) for a period of DATE at a rate of interest of PERCENT . On DATE she lent to ZIP , a company in GPE , ORG for a period of DATE at a rate of interest of PERCENT .

As the said companies failed to repay the loans , the applicant instituted proceedings against ZIP and ORG in ORG ( PERSON ) .

The proceedings against ZIP and its alleged owner GPE commenced on DATE when the applicant , together with CARDINAL other plaintiffs , filed an action for repayment of their loans .

On CARDINAL DATE the court asked the applicant ’s counsel to provide the address of the second defendant . On DATE the applicant ’s counsel submitted the address concerned .

A hearing was scheduled for DATE but it was adjourned since the defendants failed to appear . It turned out that the defendants had not received notice of the date of the hearing as the address indicated was incorrect . The court asked the applicant ’s counsel to submit the defendants’ correct address within DATE .

The next hearing was scheduled for DATE . However , it appears that in the meantime ZIP had ceased to exist and , as GPE ’s address remained unknown , the court ordered the applicant ’s counsel to request ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb ) to appoint a legal representative for GPE

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel informed the court that ORG had , by its decision of DATE , appointed a legal representative for GPE

On DATE the court asked the applicant ’s counsel to submit within DATE a certificate from the registry of ORG ( PERSON ) concerning the legal status of ZIP .

The next hearing , scheduled for DATE , was also adjourned due to the absence of the defendants . It turned out again that ZIP and GPE had not received notice of the hearing date as the address indicated was incorrect . The court invited the applicant ’s counsel to inform it within DATE whether ZIP had in fact ceased to exist .

According to the Government , during the next hearing on DATE , the court decided upon the parties’ application to return the proceedings to the status quo ante ( zahtjev za povrat u prijašnje stanje ) . Due to the absence of ZIP the hearing was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE . It appears that the proceedings are still pending before ORG .

The proceedings against ORG and its alleged owner PERSON commenced on DATE when the applicant , together with CARDINAL other plaintiffs , filed an action for repayment of their loans with ORG .

The court asked the applicant ’s counsel to provide the address of PERSON On DATE the applicant ’s counsel informed the court of PERSON ’s address .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned due to the absence of the defendants . It turned out that ORG was no longer at its previous address and that PERSON was in detention on remand . The applicant ’s counsel informed the court that PERSON had been released from detention and requested that the notices for the next hearing be sent to the defendants at the same addresses as before .

The hearing on DATE was again adjourned due to the defendants’ absence . It appears that ORG had in the meantime ceased to exist and that PERSON had changed her address . The court invited the applicant ’s counsel to inform it within DATE whether ORG had in fact ceased to exist and of the correct address of PERSON

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel informed the court of the defendants’ addresses .

The next hearing , on DATE , was also adjourned due to the defendants’ absence for the same reasons as before , that is that ORG had ceased to exist and that PERSON had changed address . The court decided to look into the criminal case file no . KO-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in the same court , where criminal proceedings had been instituted against PERSON , in order to obtain her proper address . Through that the court found her address .

By order of CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s counsel was requested to furnish the court with a certificate from the registry of ORG regarding the legal status of ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel submitted the requested document .

The next hearing , scheduled for DATE , was adjourned due to the defendants’ absence . The documents indicate that they had not received the notice of the hearing date .

The next hearing , scheduled for DATE , was adjourned for the same reason . The court invited the applicant ’s counsel to submit PERSON ’s correct address within DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel informed the court that in the police registry PERSON ’s address was the same as before . He proposed that a legal representative be appointed for PERSON

On DATE the court ordered the applicant ’s counsel to request ORG to appoint a legal representative for PERSON

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel informed the court that ORG had , by its decision of CARDINAL DATE , appointed a legal representative for GPE

According to the ORG , during the next hearing , on DATE , the court issued a default judgment ( presuda zbog izostanka ) against PERSON The available documents show that PERSON had ceased to exist .

On DATE the court sent a letter to ORG asking for a certificate regarding the legal status of ORG . On DATE the court received a letter from ORG with a certificate that wrongly contained information about another firm , instead of ORG .

On DATE the court again sent a letter to ORG asking whether ORG still existed . On DATE the court also requested the applicant ’s counsel to submit the same information . It appears that the case is still pending before ORG .

The relevant part of LAW on LAW ( “ LAW ” – PERSON o PERSON ) , which came into force on DATE , reads as follows :

“ ORG may , exceptionally , examine a constitutional complaint prior to exhaustion of other available remedies , if it is satisfied that a contested act , or failure to act within a reasonable time , grossly violates a party ’s constitutional rights and freedoms and that , if it does not act , a party will risk serious and irreparable consequences . ”


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicants , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr Şerban PERSON are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , in GPE and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

On unspecified dates the applicants filed CARDINAL administrative applications with ORG for LAW . CARDINAL of CARDINAL ( the Commission ) seeking the restitution in natura of the immovable property located at no . CARDINAL Unirii St. in GPE and nationalised by the ORG on the basis of the provisions of LAW No . CARDINAL of DATE .

By CARDINAL decisions of DATE and CARDINAL May CARDINAL the Commission rejected the applicants ' claim seeking the restitution in natura of the immovable property , on the ground that it was occupied by tenants , and acknowledged their right to compensation under the procedure provided for by PERSON No . CARDINAL of DATE .

On DATE the applicants brought an action against the Commission seeking the recovery of possession of the claimed immovable property .

On DATE the ORG valued the immovable property to be worth MONEY ( ROL ) , capped the amount in accordance with LAW CARDINAL of DATE and awarded the applicants the total sum of ROL CARDINAL in compensation .

By a decision of DATE the GPE ORG rejected the applicants ' action seeking the recovery of possession of the claimed immovable property . It held that by pursuing the procedure provided for by Law No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL the applicants had acknowledged that the immovable property had been nationalised legally by the ORG . Therefore , they could no longer bring court proceedings seeking the recovery of possession of their property , as the legal bases of the CARDINAL sets of proceedings were different and irreconcilable . The applicants appealed the decision .

By a decision of DATE the GPE ORG allowed the applicants ' appeal and quashed the decision of DATE on the ground that the claimed immovable property had been nationalised illegally by the ORG . The court also ordered the restitution in natura of the immovable property to the applicants . The ORG appealed the decision .

By a final decision of DATE ORG of Appeal allowed the ORG 's appeal ( recurs ) and upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that the administrative decisions acknowledging the lawfulness of the nationalisation had not been contested by the applicants , the said administrative decisions remained final and therefore the applicants could no longer institute proceedings seeking the recovery of possession of the claimed immovable property .

In a letter of DATE the applicants informed the ORG that they refused to collect the compensation awarded to them on the basis of PERSON No . CARDINAL of DATE on the ground that the compensation awarded did not reflect the market value of the property .

There is no evidence in the file that the applicants filed administrative applications or instituted court proceedings under the procedure provided for by the restitution laws ( Laws Nos . DATE , CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) seeking restitution in natura or compensation equivalent to the market value of the claimed immovable property .

In a letter of DATE , delivered to the applicants on DATE , they were asked to inform the ORG if they had filed administrative applications or instituted court proceedings under the procedure provided for by the restitution laws . The letter remains unanswered to date .

a ) The relevant domestic legal provisions concerning excerpts from Law Decree No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL regulating the nationalisation of immovable property and excerpts from Law No . NORP regulating the legal status of immovable property nationalised for apartment building use are summarised in GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

b ) The relevant provisions of Law No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE regulating the legal status of immovable property unlawfully nationalised by the ORG DATE and DATE , as it was amended by Law No . DATE , are summarised in PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

c ) The relevant provisions of Law No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE amending PERSON No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL regulating the legal status of immovable property unlawfully nationalised by the ORG DATE and DATE , which entered force on DATE , read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) . Individuals who were compensated under the procedure provided for by the provisions of LAW . CARDINAL of DATE , ( ... ) , could claim the restitution in natura of the claimed immovable property insofar as the property had not been sold by the time of the entry into force of the law and insofar as they had returned the amount received as compensation , ( ... ) .

( CARDINAL ) . Where the immovable property was sold in compliance with the provisions of LAW . CARDINAL of DATE , ( ... ) , the entitled individuals have a right to equivalent compensatory measures which reflect the market value of the immovable property ( ... ) . Where the entitled individuals were awarded compensation on the basis of the procedure provided for by LAW . CARDINAL of DATE , ( ... ) , they have a right to be awarded the difference in value between the sums they had cashed in and the market value of the immovable property ( ... ) . ”


The applicant , ORG , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . She currently lives in ORG , LOC , GPE . Before DATE she used to live in PERSON . She is represented before the ORG by PERSON and PERSON , lawyers of FAC ( GPE ) and ORG ( GPE ) . The respondent Government are represented by ORG , ORG at ORG .

The facts of the case are partially disputed by the parties . They may be summarised as follows .

In DATE the applicant , who used to live in ORG , set up a farm in the village of GPE , GPE . In DATE she , together with her sister PERSON , bought CARDINAL cows at a collective farm in ORG , which she brought to ORG . The applicant submits that in ORG she owned a house of CARDINAL rooms and DATE cow - shed . She also owned a GPE tractor , a caterpillar tractor and a GPE car .

The applicant ’s brother PERSON and neighbour PERSON permanently lived in PERSON with their families and took care of the applicant ’s cattle , for which she paid them a DATE salary .

In DATE hostilities started in GPE between the NORP military and the armed groups of the NORP rebel fighters . PERSON and other towns and villages came under attack from the NORP military forces , which were trying to regain control over the Republic .

In DATE the applicant left PERSON because of the hostilities and went to PERSON .

The applicant submits that on DATE the village unexpectedly came under attack from the air . As a result of a blast the applicant ’s brother PERSON received a splinter wound in the back and bled heavily . The applicant ’s niece PERSON , aged four , was also wounded by a blast . They both died within TIME without receiving medical help . Their neighbour PERSON was also killed by a blast on DATE .

The strikes continued DATE and the applicant and her family members had to hide in a cave . During TIME the applicant and her relatives brought the bodies of her brother and niece to the family cemetery and hastily buried them .

According to the applicant , the attack on the village continued until DATE . All her property and her father ’s house , situated nearby , were destroyed . Her cattle were killed and the vehicles owned by her were destroyed .

When the attack was over the applicant and her relatives walked from their village to ORG . From there the applicant arrived at the village of ORG , LOC , where she currently resides .

In DATE the Civil Registration office of LOC issued death certificates in respect of PERSON - born on DATE , died on DATE in PERSON ( the applicant submits that there was a mistake in the recorded date of death ) - and in respect of GPE LANGUAGE - born on DATE , died on DATE in ORG .

On DATE the military commissariat of ORG confirmed that , for pension purposes , the applicant ’s brother PERSON had been taken off the military draft register as of DATE because of his death .

The applicant submits that she applied to the prosecutor ’s office and to the court of the LOC district on unspecified dates in DATE and DATE . The applicant is not aware of the results . She submits that an officer at the prosecutor ’s service told her to stop complaining or she would “ disappear ” . At some date a group of soldiers on armoured personnel carriers ( ORG ) came to her house , produced a copy of her application to ORG and tore it up . They threatened her with revenge if she continued to complain . The applicant did not pursue any domestic remedies afterwards , fearing for her life .

The Government submit in their Memorandum of DATE that the information contained in the applicant ’s complaint , namely the attack on ORG , the death and wounding of its residents , including the applicant ’s relatives , and the destruction of her property was not brought to the attention of the competent authorities . There is no record of her alleged complaints to the prosecutor ’s office or to the court . Following the communication of the complaint the local prosecutor ’s office has been carrying out a verification of the complaints .

The Government further state that the courts in GPE started functioning in DATE . There is no record of the applicant ’s application to any district court in GPE . On DATE the applicant was questioned by a judge of a district court and stated that she had never applied to a court with a complaint .

The applicant submits that as a result of the sustained shock she became ill and was operated on . In DATE she was classified as disabled due to her illness .

The applicant submitted the following documents to support her claims .

First , she submitted CARDINAL application forms : a brief CARDINAL dated DATE , and a more detailed CARDINAL dated DATE . In her application form of DATE the applicant alleged a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL concerning the damage to her property and of LAW and did not mention the death of her relatives . Her complaints under LAW , CARDINAL and DATE of the ORG are set out in the second application form .

The applicant submitted her own statements of facts , dated DATE and DATE . She also submitted a statement by her sister PERSON , who was not herself a witness of the events in GPE . The applicant also submitted a statement by PERSON , who was in ORG on DATE , which corroborated the applicant ’s account . The statement does not indicate the witness ’s address or identity document . It is dated DATE .

The applicant submitted medical documents indicating that in DATE she underwent an operation for cancer and that in DATE she received post - operational treatment .

As a proof of her ownership of the property in ORG and its destruction the applicant submitted a letter issued in DATE by an enterprise in ORG which stated that in DATE the applicant had purchased there a CARDINAL head of cattle for the sum of roubles ( RUR ) CARDINAL .

In DATE the administration of the village of ORG issued a note to confirm that in DATE the applicant had regularly travelled to LOC to take care of the cattle and her farm there , which was destroyed in DATE .

The Government submitted a letter from ORG which stated that the applicant had never applied to a court in GPE with a claim for compensation by way of damages .

They also submitted a copy of the applicant ’s written explanations addressed to the chairman of ORG , dated DATE and collected by a judge of that court . The applicant stated that on DATE she had been subjected to an air attack in GPE , GPE . As a result of the attack the applicant ’s house and farm , CARDINAL cows , CARDINAL tractors and a “ FAC car were destroyed . CARDINAL persons had been killed as a result of the attack . The applicant further stated that she had applied to ORG which had failed to react . The applicant had not applied to the law - enforcement bodies in ORG , because they were not functionning in DATE . In DATE the applicant talked to a representative of FAC and decided to apply to the international court .


Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

ORG The applicant , who was born in DATE , currently resides in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation . On DATE he was placed in detention on remand .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant , charging him under Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( CARDINAL ) , DATE and CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation and armed robbery .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the former LAW , and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment for the former offence and to DATE and DATE imprisonment for the latter offence . ORG further stated that the provisions of LAW no . DATE , which governed conditional release , the suspension of proceedings and the execution of sentences in respect of certain offences committed before DATE , had to be taken into account in the execution of the sentence in relation to the offence under LAW ) .

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the judgment of ORG . The public prosecutor did not lodge an appeal .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG , finding that the classification of the applicant 's offence had been erroneous . ORG further held that the applicant 's acquired rights in his former conviction by the decision dated DATE had to be safeguarded in the new judgment which would be rendered by ORG .

The applicant was consequently tried afresh before ORG . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under LAW for attempting to undermine the constitutional order and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . ORG stated in its judgment that the applicant 's acquired rights had been observed because in the first judgment the applicant had been sentenced to a total of DATE imprisonment , whereas in the new judgment the sentence was reduced .

On DATE the applicant appealed against this judgment arguing , inter alia , that his acquired rights had not been protected . He maintained that , although the sentence imposed by ORG in its second judgment had been lower than that originally imposed , under the latter he would have been conditionally released pursuant to PERSON no . DATE after DATE , thus actually serving a shorter sentence .

On DATE ORG upheld the reasoning in the judgment of ORG , and dismissed the appeal .

Following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code on DATE , ORG reopened the proceedings against the applicant in order to review his sentence , pursuant to the provisions of the new LAW . As an interim measure , on DATE the applicant was conditionally released pending the outcome of the proceedings . On DATE ORG found that the provisions of the former criminal code were more favourable to the applicant and therefore decided not to apply the provisions of the new LAW . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal . In the meantime , following his release , the applicant fled to GPE , where he currently resides .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE , stipulates , inter alia , that persons who were serving their prison sentences following a conviction in respect of crimes committed before DATE were entitled to a DATE reduction in their total sentence under the relevant execution regulations .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of this PERSON states that the provisions of LAW are not applicable to , inter alia , ORG and CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the former Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that , upon an appeal lodged solely by the accused , or by the prosecutor for the benefit of the accused , the new judgment may not impose a sentence which is more severe than that which was imposed originally .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13+3;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 34;Remainder inadmissible;Just satisfaction reserved

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE .

The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE and resided in the town of GPE in LOC . It appears that until DATE he returned to GPE for several short periods of time . In DATE he was convicted by a NORP court and sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for having used a false migration card . After his release , in DATE he moved to PERSON , a provincial town in LOC , where he was employed as a cook . On DATE the applicant sought a temporary residence authorisation ( разрешение на временное проживание ) and apparently applied for NORP citizenship . It appears that his application was rejected on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the applicant , he became aware of that refusal only on DATE .

Most recently , from DATE to DATE the applicant had a valid temporary residence registration ( временная регистрация ) in LOC . According to the applicant , on an unspecified date in DATE the Chief Inspector of ORG in LOC refused to renew it . It appears , however , that no formal decision was issued .

According to the NORP authorities , in DATE CARDINAL NORP nationals complained to ORG ( ORG ) that the applicant had been engaged in anti - constitutional activities during an unspecified period of time . He left GPE after his accomplices had been apprehended .

On DATE the NSS of the Surkhandarianskiy Region initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant under LAW ( b ) and LAW , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . They accused him of membership of ORG ut - GPE ( ORG ) , a transnational NORP organisation , which is banned in GPE , GPE and NORP states . On DATE the NORP authorities issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant with reference to the charges under LAW and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Uzbek Criminal Code .

On DATE the applicant was apprehended in the town of PERSON in GPE and taken into custody . On DATE the ORG of the Lipetsk Region authorised his detention with a view to extradition to GPE , relying on LAW ( CCrP ) . It did not set a time - limit for which that detention was authorised . The detention order was amenable to appeal to ORG within a DATE time - limit . The applicant did not appeal .

In DATE ORG requested the applicant ’s extradition and provided assurances that he would not be surrendered to another State without GPE ’s consent and would not be prosecuted or punished for any offence committed prior to his extradition and for which extradition would have been refused ; and that he would be able to leave GPE after being tried and serving his sentence .

On DATE the ORG regional prosecutor instructed the administration of the remand centre to keep the applicant in detention under LAW CCrP , the DATE Minsk Convention and ORG Instructions of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the extradition request because some of the acts imputed to the applicant were not criminal offences in GPE , while the others had been committed before becoming punishable under LAW , or prosecution for such offences had become time - barred .

On DATE ORG informed ORG of the Lipetsk Region that the applicant ’s extradition had been refused , and instructed that office to check the grounds for the applicant ’s presence in the territory of GPE and to decide whether he should be removed from GPE .

On DATE the regional prosecutor instructed ORG to check the lawfulness of the applicant ’s stay in GPE and to institute proceedings against him under LAW , if appropriate . The prosecutor wrote as follows :

“ ... if a judge does not order administrative expulsion and if legal grounds obtain , it is necessary to decide on Mr PERSON ’s deportation under section CARDINAL of the PERSON on Entering and Leaving GPE and the Government ’s Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ... ”

On DATE , ORG ordered the applicant ’s release from custody .

The applicant was released on DATE . Immediately thereafter , ORG accused him of residing in the territory of GPE in breach of LAW . It found in particular that the applicant ’s application “ for permission to temporarily reside in GPE ” had been rejected by ORG ( “ ORG ” ) on DATE and that his residence registration had expired on DATE . On DATE , the administrative file was examined by a judge in the ORG who discontinued the case for lack of a corpus delicti . The judge held in essence that although the applicant ’s residence registration had expired on DATE , on that date and until DATE he had been detained with a view to extradition . Having been released and charged on DATE , he could not have committed the offence imputed to him . The judgment became final after the expiry of the statutory time - limit for appeal .

While in detention , in DATE the applicant submitted to ORG applications for refugee status and temporary asylum in GPE . On DATE migration officers interviewed him in the remand centre . As can be seen from the interview record , signed by the applicant , he denied membership of any proscribed organisation ; having learnt from his wife about the criminal charges against him in GPE , he had been planning to go there in order to clarify the situation but could not buy a train ticket . He indicated his “ fear of being prosecuted for serious offences which he had not committed ” as the reason for refusing to return to GPE .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant ’s application for refugee status on the merits , concluding that he had left GPE for “ economic reasons ” falling outside the scope of an admissible refugee request and that he was refusing to return there because of the criminal prosecution against him . ORG also rejected his temporary asylum application on DATE , concluding that his fear of being prosecuted for offences could not be a valid reason for granting temporary asylum . The ORG found as follows :

“ ... the applicant ’s explanations are contradictory ... On DATE he explained that he had arrived in PERSON to purchase a train ticket , whereas on DATE he contended that he had been in PERSON to seek assistance from a friend in order to lodge a complaint with the GPE court . The applicant probably means ORG in GPE , whereas he is a national of GPE , a NORP republic . Besides , a complaint before that court may be lodged after the applicant has exhausted all judicial remedies in his republic ; in addition , he fled justice in GPE . Thus , the applicant is manifestly trying to hide his true intentions .

All the reasons indicated by the applicant for not returning to GPE were examined together with his request for refugee status and did not justify granting such status . No other reasons were adduced in favour of granting such a status on the basis of humane considerations .

According to information from ORG , ‘ ... there was no ascertainable information about instances of torture or the sentencing of expelled NORP nationals to the death penalty ... During DATE GPE has taken certain measures for reform in this field ... In DATE ORG of GPE prohibited lower courts from using in evidence confessions obtained under torture or without counsel being present . In DATE the Plenary Session of ORG upheld the inadmissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence ... ’

The seriousness of the charges against the applicant should be taken into account ... The political and extremist activities of ORG ut - GPE may represent a threat to national security ... ”

NORP In DATE the applicant , with the help of ORG , a non - governmental organisation helping immigrants , retained ORG to represent his interests in the domestic proceedings . On DATE the applicant obtained a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE and appealed against it . He pleaded that he had become a refugee “ sur place ” ; being a GPE , he feared that he would be tortured by the NORP authorities in order to make him admit to the extremist charges against him . He referred to reports by the ORG and international non - governmental organisations about cases of ill - treatment against several persons in a similar situation .

On DATE the applicant was expelled to GPE ( for further details see section D below ) .

On DATE the ORG of Lipetsk upheld the decision of DATE . The court concluded that the applicant had failed to adduce any evidence that he had been or would be persecuted for “ political reasons ” .

On DATE the Lipetsk ORG set aside the judgment of DATE and ordered a re - examination of the matter by ORG . On DATE ORG again dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . It found as follows :

“ ... [ the applicant ] failed to comply with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW requiring him to adduce evidence in support of his allegation of political persecution ....

[ PERSON has already been residing unlawfully in GPE for a long time ...

He neither submitted any evidence that he had left GPE for political reasons , nor has it been averred that his fears of persecution for political reasons were justified . He did not apply for refugee status after his unlawful entry into NORP territory . Thus , there were no legal grounds for examining his DATE refugee application on the merits . ”

The applicant ’s representative did not appeal against that judgment .

In the meantime , in DATE the applicant obtained an appointment for an interview on DATE at FAC in the Moscow Office of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees .

On DATE ORG requested the migration authorities to confirm the lawfulness of the applicant ’s stay in GPE so that he could leave for another country that did not require a visa for NORP nationals .

The applicant was apprehended on DATE on the premises of ORG , apparently because of his lack of a residence registration required under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He was then taken to ORG of ORG . After an interview , he was brought before a judge of ORG of GPE , who found the applicant guilty of having resided in GPE in breach of the residence regulations . The judge imposed on him an administrative fine of MONEY ( RUB ) and ordered his administrative expulsion from GPE , which is a subsidiary penalty under LAW . According to the text of the judgment , at the hearing the applicant conceded that he had been unlawfully resident in GPE and had no definite place of residence or source of income in GPE . According to the applicant , he was not allowed to contact ORG , to be represented by a lawyer retained by it or to speak during the hearing . In a separate decision given on DATE , the judge ordered the applicant ’s immediate placement in FAC no . CARDINAL for Aliens .

On DATE the ORG asked the administration of the detention centre not to deport the applicant without its consent and to coordinate with it all visits to the applicant , receipt of parcels by him or his telephone calls .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel lodged a statement of appeal against the expulsion order with ORG . A hearing was set down for DATE .

On DATE the applicant issued PERSON with an authority form empowering her to institute proceedings before ORG .

On DATE the applicant requested the ORG , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , to prevent his expulsion to GPE . He feared immediate expulsion despite his pending appeal against the expulsion order and alleged that he would face a serious risk of ill - treatment and unfair prosecution if he were returned to GPE .

On DATE the ORG indicated to ORG under Rule CARDINAL that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE until further notice . ORG were notified at TIME GPE time ( TIME GPE time ) by e - transmission through the publication of the relevant letter on the secure website used for communication between ORG and ORG at ORG .

According to the ORG , the applicant left GPE at TIME ( GPE time ) on DATE from GPE for GPE on board flight no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL . The applicant ’s representative submitted a letter dated DATE issued by ORG , which read as follows :

“ ORG can not confirm that Mr PERSON PERSON was on board flight no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL from GPE to GPE on DATE since there is no boarding pass for that passenger . ”

As follows from a letter of DATE from ORG , Mr PERSON was on board flight no . HY-CARDINAL from GPE to GPE on DATE . According to a copy of the log entries provided by the company and produced by the applicant ’s representative , that flight left GPE at TIME on DATE .

According to a report allegedly issued by the ORG on DATE , the applicant was questioned on DATE in relation to his alleged extremist activities ; “ in view of his insincerity and taking into account the pressure by the human - rights organisations which attempt to present him as a victim of political repression , [ the applicant ] was removed from GPE ” .

According to a press release issued by the ORG on DATE , the applicant was removed from GPE on DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the expulsion order of DATE and remitted the case to ORG . ORG found that the district judge had not specified the nature of the applicant ’s allegedly unlawful conduct . The judge had not established the facts of the case , including DATE applicant ’s arrival in GPE , whether he had complied with his obligation to register at the place of his residence in GPE and when his registration had expired . Neither had the judge verified the authorities’ allegation that the applicant had been residing unlawfully in GPE since DATE .

On DATE ORG re - examined the case and found that “ the applicant had been lawfully present in the territory of GPE when he was first apprehended and remanded in custody ” ; he had then arrived in GPE on DATE in order to apply for refugee status at ORG ’s GPE office ; he had stayed at the office of ORG until his arrest on DATE . ORG also indicated that the applicant had appealed against the refusal to examine his application for refugee status and that a judgment had been given on DATE and had not yet become final . ORG concluded that the applicant had not committed the administrative offence of “ breaching the residence regulations within the territory of the GPE ” , and discontinued the proceedings .

On DATE ORG in GPE convicted the applicant of unlawful actions against the constitutional order and participation in the activities of a proscribed organisation , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . According to the text of the judgment , “ [ the applicant ] pleaded not guilty at the trial , denied the charges against him and fully retracted the statement he had made during the preliminary investigation while indicating that he had been compelled to sign that statement , which he had done without reading it ” . With reference to statements from CARDINAL witnesses and the applicant ’s pre - trial statement , the trial court found that in DATE the applicant had become a member of ORG in GPE and had engaged in propaganda concerning its activities aimed at subverting the constitutional regime and creating an NORP state . The judgment indicated that the applicant had been represented by a lawyer . The trial judgment was amenable to appeal . It is unclear whether the applicant exercised his right to appeal against it .

According to the applicant ’s representative before the ORG , the applicant had been refused permission to be represented by his privately retained counsel but legal - aid counsel had been appointed instead . Neither the applicant ’s representative nor his family members had been informed of the exact place of his detention in GPE .

The applicant ’s representative before the ORG wrote to ORG asking for information regarding the place of the applicant ’s detention and the conditions of access to him . Her request was forwarded to the prosecutor in GPE . On DATE the prosecutor forwarded the request to ORG . The applicant ’s representative also wrote to ORG and ORG . No replies were received .

On an unspecified date , the NORP authorities sent a request concerning the applicant to the NORP authorities . On DATE the NORP Ministry of the ORG replied and enclosed a letter in NORP from the applicant dated DATE worded as follows :

“ ... during my arrest and detention ... the police and other law - enforcement officers did not violate my rights and did not exert any physical pressure upon me .

I have no claims against the police officers in GPE or PERSON or against any other law - enforcement authority in GPE .

I confirm that this declaration is correct and written with my own hand . ”

According to a linguistic expert report , produced by the applicant ’s representative , the above letter did not contain any significant mistakes , whereas the applicant ’s personal letters contained numerous mistakes reflecting his NORP mother tongue ’s phonetics and grammar . The expert noted that the applicant would not have been able to acquire a sufficient command of the LANGUAGE language during DATE between the date of his sample letters ( September CARDINAL ) and the letter in question ( DATE ) . The expert concluded that the letter of DATE had not been written spontaneously by the applicant , who had transcribed the text from the original or written it from a letter - by - letter dictation by someone else .

On DATE ORG of LOC of GPE initiated criminal proceedings on a complaint by the applicant ’s representative about his hasty expulsion .

On DATE the GPE military prosecutor refused to bring criminal proceedings against any ORG officers in relation to the applicant ’s hasty expulsion . The prosecutor stated :

“ ... as a result of the joint operation by officials of detention centre no . CARDINAL , migration officers and ORG officers on DATE , [ the applicant ] was removed from GPE in breach of ... LAW ...

It transpires from the case file that the matter of his expulsion before the judgment ... acquired legal force was raised by the ORG before the migration authority and the administration of the detention centre ...

[ I]t was established that the migration authority had purchased a flight ticket for [ the applicant ] but it had not been used ... thus , the exact time of his crossing the NORP border was not confirmed ...

According to PERSON , an ORG officer , Mr PERSON ’s departure was delayed pending the arrival of NORP officials , who purchased a new ticket for him ... ”

On DATE Mr PERSON , Director of ORG , was charged with abuse of power . PERSON pleaded guilty at the trial . On DATE ORG of GPE convicted him of abuse of power and sentenced him to a fine of RUB CARDINAL . It held , inter alia :

“ ... being aware that the expulsion order in respect of Mr PERSON had not become final , PERSON violated his defence rights and authorised the execution of the expulsion order at TIME on DATE ... As a result , Mr PERSON was put on flight no . HY-CARDINAL leaving for GPE ...

Besides , ... on DATE ORG indicated to the NORP authorities that he should not be removed from GPE . However , GPE was unable to comply with that decision as a result of PERSON unlawful actions . ”

It appears that that judgment was not appealed against and became final .

No one may be subjected to torture , violence or any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW ) . The decisions and actions ( or inaction ) of ORG authorities , local self - government , non - governmental associations and public officials may be challenged in a court of law ( LAW ) . In conformity with the international treaties of GPE , everyone has the right to turn to inter - State organs concerned with the protection of human rights and liberties after all domestic remedies have been exhausted ( LAW ) .

Pursuant to the Agreement between the NORP and ORG signed in GPE on DATE , as amended in DATE , citizens of CARDINAL of GPE were not required to have a visa to enter and stay in the territory of the other ORG ( section CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW in GPE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE – “ LAW ” ) , as in force at the material time , a foreign national could temporarily stay in the territory of GPE , or temporarily or permanently reside in it . A foreign national had to obtain a temporary residence authorisation ( разрешение на временное проживание ) in order to temporarily reside in GPE or a residence permit ( вид на жительство ) in order to permanently reside in GPE ( sections CARDINAL and DATE , respectively ) . A temporary residence authorisation or a residence permit could be refused , inter alia , if an alien advocated a violent change of the constitutional foundations of GPE , otherwise created a threat to its security or citizens or supported terrorist ( extremist ) activities ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

A foreign national had to register his or her residence within DATE of his or her arrival in GPE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Foreign nationals had to obtain residence registration at the address where they were staying in GPE . Should their address change , such change was to be re - registered with the police within DATE ( section ORG ) ) .

A foreign national who breached the regulations on staying or residing in GPE , including failure to register his or her residence , was liable to an administrative fine with or without administrative expulsion from GPE ( LAW ) . A decision on the administrative offence was enforced once it had become final ( LAW ) .

Pursuant to the ORG on deportation or administrative expulsion of an alien , adopted by ORG on DATE , the authority in charge of the execution of an expulsion order which had become final was to determine the country of destination and make arrangements for the alien ’s departure ( point CARDINAL ) .

Under the PERSON on the Procedure for Entering and Leaving GPE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) , as amended in DATE , a competent authority could decide that a foreign national ’s presence in NORP territory was undesirable – even if it was lawful DATE if , for example , it created a real threat to the defence capacity or security of the ORG , to public order or health ( section CARDINAL of the PERSON ) . If such a decision was given , the foreign national had to leave GPE or else be removed from the country . The procedure for such removal was detailed in the Government ’s Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE .

Under LAW ( CCrP ) , the period of detention pending investigation could not exceed DATE ( LAW ) and could be extended by a judge DATE ( LAW ) . Further extensions could only be granted if the person was charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences ( LAW ) . No extension beyond DATE was permissible and the detainee was to be released immediately ( LAW ) .

Upon receipt of a request for extradition not accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court , ORG or his deputy was to decide on the measure of restraint in respect of the person whose extradition was sought . The measure of restraint was to be applied in accordance with the established procedure ( LAW ) .

Pursuant to the ORG issued by ORG on DATE , the procedure for the arrest and extension of detention of persons pending extradition was determined by international treaties to which GPE was a party . LAW of the ORG was applicable in the parts complying with those treaties . Detainees’ release could be ordered by ORG or by a court decision ( point CARDINAL ) .

In a decision of DATE ORG held that the general provisions governing measures of restraint applied to all forms and stages of criminal proceedings , including proceedings on extradition . ORG reiterated its settled case - law to the effect that excessive or arbitrary detention , unlimited in time and without judicial review , was not compatible with LAW in any circumstances , including in the context of extradition proceedings . It appears that the decision was published in DATE . On DATE the Constitutional Court declined jurisdiction in relation to a request by ORG for clarification of that decision and indicated that courts of general jurisdiction were competent to decide on the procedure and time - limits which should apply for detention in extradition proceedings .

Chapter CARDINAL of the ORG laid down the procedure by which parties to criminal proceedings could challenge the acts or omissions of an inquirer , investigator , prosecutor or court ( section CARDINAL ) . Those acts or omissions could be challenged before a prosecutor or a court . Article CARDINAL provides for judicial review of a decision taken by inquirers , investigators , prosecutors not to initiate criminal proceedings , a decision to discontinue them or any other decision or omission which was capable of impinging upon the rights of persons involved in the proceedings ( section CARDINAL ) .

The Custody Act laid down the procedure and conditions for the detention of persons who were apprehended under the ORG on suspicion of criminal offences ; it also applied to persons who were suspected or accused of criminal offences and who were remanded in custody ( section CARDINAL ) . Persons suspected or accused of criminal offences had a right to lodge complaints with a court or another authority in relation to the lawfulness and reasonableness of their detention ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) .

LAW ( Law no . GPE of DATE ) defines a refugee as a person who is not a NORP national and who , owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , religion , nationality , ethnic origin , membership of a particular social group or political opinion , is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country ; or who , not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events , is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to return to it ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . The migration authority may refuse to examine the application for refugee status on the merits if the person concerned has left the country of his nationality in circumstances falling outside the scope of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , and does not want to return to the country of his nationality because of a fear of being held responsible for an offence ( правонарушение ) committed there ( section CARDINAL ) ) .

Persons who have applied for or been granted refugee status can not be returned against their will to the ORG of which they are a national where their life or freedom would be imperilled on account of their race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ) .

Having received a refusal to examine an application for refugee status on the merits and having decided not to exercise the right of appeal under LAW , the person concerned must leave the territory of GPE within DATE of receiving notification of the refusal if he or she has no other legal grounds for staying in GPE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , having received a refusal to examine the application for refugee status on the merits or a refusal of refugee status and having exercised the right of appeal against such refusals , the person concerned must leave the territory of GPE within DATE of receiving notification of the decision on the appeal if he or she has no other legal grounds for staying in GPE . If , after the appeal has been rejected , the person concerned still refuses to leave the country , he or she is to be deported ( section CARDINAL ) ) .

If the person satisfies the criteria set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , or if he or she does not satisfy such criteria but can not be expelled or deported from GPE for humanitarian reasons , he or she may be granted temporary asylum ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Persons who have been granted temporary asylum can not be returned against their will to the country of which they are a national or to the country of their former habitual residence ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil , Family and Criminal Matters ( signed in GPE on DATE and amended on DATE ) , to which both GPE and GPE are parties , provides that an extradited person can not be subject to criminal prosecution or punished for a criminal offence committed prior to extradition and in respect of which extradition was refused , without the consent of the extraditing ORG ( LAW ) . The extradited person can not be surrendered to a third State without the consent of the extraditing ORG ( LAW ) .

In his report ( E / PERSON ) submitted in accordance with Resolution CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG ( ORG Human Rights , the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture , PERSON , described the situation in GPE as follows :

“ CARDINAL . According to the information received from non - governmental sources , torture is being used in virtually all cases in which articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL CC [ Criminal Code ] ... are invoked , in order to extract self - incriminating confessions and to punish those who are perceived by public authorities to be involved in either religious , or political , activities contrary to ORG interests ( socalled security crimes ) . These provisions , which are rather vaguely worded and whose scope of application may be subject to various interpretations , are said to have been used in numerous allegedly fabricated cases and to have led to harsh prison sentences . The CARDINAL crimes that , following recent amendments , are now the only capital offences are said to lead to a death sentence only if they are combined with aggravated murder charges . Evidence gathering in such cases is said to rely exclusively on confessions extracted by illegal means . It is reported that religious leaflets as well as weapons or bullets have been planted as evidence that a person belongs to banned groups such as ORG - ut - GPE , a transnational NORP movement which calls for the peaceful establishment of the ORG in LOC . It is also reported that torture and ill - treatment continue to be used against inmates convicted on such charges , inter alia to force them to write repentance letters to the President of the LOC or to punish them further ...

The combination of a lack of respect for the principle of presumption of innocence despite being guaranteed by LAW ( article CARDINAL ) and [ LAW ] ( article CARDINAL ) , the discretionary powers of the investigators and procurators with respect to access to detainees by legal counsel and relatives , as well as the lack of independence of the judiciary and allegedly rampant corruption in the judiciary and law enforcement agencies , are believed to be conducive to the use of illegal methods of investigation . The excessive powers in the overall criminal proceedings of procurators , who are supposed at the same time to conduct and supervise preliminary criminal investigations , to bring charges and to monitor respect for existing legal safeguards against torture during criminal investigations and in places of detention , make investigations into complaints overly dependent on their goodwill .

The Special Rapporteur regrets the absence of legal guarantees such as the right to habeas corpus and the right to prompt and confidential access to a lawyer and relatives . He further observes that pre - trial detainees are held in facilities which are under the same jurisdiction as investigators in the case ...

DATE . The Special Rapporteur believes , on the basis of the numerous testimonies ( including on a number of deaths in custody ) he received during the mission , not least from those whose evident fear led them to request anonymity and who thus had nothing to gain personally from making their allegations , that torture or similar ill - treatment is systematic as defined by ORG . Even though only a small number of torture cases can be proved with absolute certainty , the copious testimonies gathered are so consistent in their description of torture techniques and the places and circumstances in which torture is perpetrated that the pervasive and persistent nature of torture throughout the investigative process can not be denied . The Special Rapporteur also observes that torture and other forms of ill - treatment appear to be used indiscriminately against persons charged for activities qualified as serious crimes such as acts against ORG interests , as well as petty criminals and others . ”

DATE . In DATE ORG considered the second periodic report of GPE under LAW and adopted the following observations ( ORG ) :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG is concerned about the continuing high number of convictions based on confessions made in pre - trial detention that were allegedly obtained by methods incompatible with article CARDINAL of the LAW . It also notes that , while on DATE the Plenum of ORG held that no information obtained from a detained individual in violation of the criminal procedure requirements ( including in the absence of a lawyer ) may be used as evidence in court , this requirement is not reflected in a law ...

The ORG is concerned about allegations relating to widespread use of torture and illtreatment of detainees and the low number of officials who have been charged , prosecuted and convicted for such acts . It is a matter of further concern that no independent inquiries are conducted in police stations and other places of detention to guarantee that no torture or illtreatment takes place , apart from a small number of inquiries with external participation quoted by the delegation ...

The ORG notes that while under domestic law individuals have access to a lawyer at the time of arrest , this right is often not respected in practice ...

The ORG remains concerned that the judiciary is not fully independent and that the appointment of judges has to be reviewed by the executive branch DATE ... ”

The applicant also referred to the DATE report ( CCPR / CO/CARDINAL/UZB , § CARDINAL ) by ORG and the DATE report ( CAT / C / CR/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ( e ) ) by the ORG .

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture , PERSON , stated at the Session of the UN Human Rights Council on DATE :

“ The practice of torture in GPE is systematic , as indicated in the report of my predecessor PERSON visit to the country in DATE . Lending support to this finding , my mandate continues to receive serious allegations of torture by NORP law enforcement officials ... Against such significant , serious and credible evidence of systematic torture by law enforcement officials in GPE , I continue to find myself appealing to ORG to refrain from transferring persons to GPE ... ”

NORP In his DATE report “ Situation of human rights in GPE ” ( A/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) the ORG Secretary General expressed his concern about the fate of individuals extradited or expelled to GPE :

“ CARDINAL . ORG continues to be concerned about the fate of an increasing number of NORP asylum - seekers and refugees , some of whom fled the ORG events , who have been detained in countries of ORG and forcibly returned to GPE despite a real risk of mistreatment in breach of international standards . In DATE , CARDINAL NORP asylum - seekers were forcefully returned from GPE to GPE . In a press statement of DATE , ORG said that it was appalled by this forceful deportation . Thus far , ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) has not had access to the CARDINAL individuals ... According to information received by ORG , no access has been granted to these individuals since their return to GPE .

ORG is concerned about other individuals who have fled since the ORG events and who are under pressure from the Government of GPE or the host country to return despite a real risk of mistreatment in breach of international standards ...

In an interview of DATE , the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture said that ‘ there is ample evidence that both police and other security forces have been and are continuing to systematically practise torture , in particular against dissidents or people who are opponents of the regime’ ...

ORG , in its concluding observations of DATE ( CCPR / OP/CARDINAL/UZB ) , remained concerned about the high number of convictions based on confessions made in pre - trial detention that were allegedly obtained by methods incompatible with article CARDINAL of LAW . The ORG expressed concern at the definition of torture in LAW of GPE . In addition , ORG pointed to the allegations relating to widespread use of torture and ill - treatment of detainees and the low number of officials who have been charged , prosecuted and convicted for such acts . The Government of GPE was due to submit follow - up information by DATE on these issues in accordance with the request of ORG . So far , no such information has been submitted to ORG . ”

In DATE ORG considered the third periodic report of GPE ( CAT / C / UZB/CARDINAL ) and adopted , inter alia , the following conclusions ( CAT / C / UZB / CO/CARDINAL ) :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG is concerned about :

( a ) Numerous , ongoing and consistent allegations concerning routine use of torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment committed by law enforcement and investigative officials or with their instigation or consent , often to extract confessions or information to be used in criminal proceedings ;

( b ) ORG reports that such acts commonly occur before formal charges are made , and during pre - trial detention , when the detainee is deprived of fundamental safeguards , in particular access to legal counsel . This situation is exacerbated by the reported use of internal regulations which in practice permit procedures contrary to published laws ;

( c ) The failure to conduct prompt and impartial investigations into such allegations of breaches of the LAW ; ...

The ORG has also received credible reports that some persons who sought refuge abroad and were returned to the country have been kept in detention in unknown places and possibly subjected to breaches of the Convention ...

[ T]he ORG remains concerned that despite the reported improvements , there are numerous reports of abuses in custody and many deaths , some of which are alleged to have followed torture or ill - treatment ... ”

In support of his allegation of the risk of ill - treatment in GPE , the applicant also submitted a copy of the third - party submissions by ORG ) and ORG in the cases of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , judgment of DATE ) and in PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALI ) ; the DATE report by ORG in cooperation with ORG in relation to ORG of GPE to ORG ; the DATE HRW Briefing Paper “ Torture Reform Assessment : GPE ’s ORG on Torture ” and other documents from that organisation ; and various news items available on Internet sites such as www.centrasia.ru . The above documents described a disquieting human - rights situation in GPE with reference to diverse examples and indicated a lack of ascertainable progress in this field .

In a comprehensive DATE report entitled “ Creating Enemies of the State : Religious Persecution in GPE ” , ORG provides the following analysis ( internal footnotes omitted ) :

“ Members of PERSON ut - GPE , like NORP labeled ‘ PERSON by the state , are overwhelmingly self - defined PERSON , as are most NORP in GPE , and not adherents of Wahabbism as it is understood in the NORP context ...

ORG ut - GPE members form a distinct segment of the independent NORP population by virtue of their affiliation with a separate and defined NORP group with its own principles , structure , activities , and religious texts .

ORG ut - GPE is an international NORP organization with branches in many parts of the world , including LOC and LOC . ORG ut - GPE propagates a particular vision of an NORP state . Its aims are restoration of the ORG , or NORP rule , in LOC and other traditionally NORP lands , and the practice of NORP piety , as the group interprets it ... PERSON ut - GPE renounces violence as a means to achieve reestablishment of the ORG . However , it does not reject the use of violence during armed conflicts already under way and in which the group regards NORP as struggling against oppressors , such as NORP violence against NORP occupation . Its literature denounces secularism and Western - style democracy . Its anti - NORP and anti - GPE statements have led the government of GPE to ban it . The government of GPE has also banned the group , classifying it as a terrorist organization .

Some in the diplomatic community , in particular the GPE government , consider NORP ut - GPE to be a political organization and therefore argue that imprisoned NORP ut - GPE members are not victims of religious persecution . But religion and politics are inseparable in PERSON ideology and activities , and CARDINAL of the chief reasons NORP authorities arrest members is the religious ideas PERSON ut - GPE promotes : the reestablishment of the ORG and strict observance of the Koran . Even if one accepts that there is a political component to PERSON ut - GPE ’s ideology , methods , and goals , this does not vitiate the right of that group ’s members to be protected from religion - based persecution .

ORG ut - GPE in GPE

ORG ut - GPE is not registered in GPE and is therefore illegal . It is referred to as a ‘ ORG organization , though in contrast to the means used by NORP authorities to ban ORG ut - GPE , no single NORP administrative or judicial decision has ever prohibited the organization .

Members meet in small groups of CARDINAL people , referred to as ‘ study PERSON by members and as ‘ secret ORG by NORP government officials . Both sides acknowledge that the primary activity of these small groups is the teaching and study of PERSON ut - GPE literature , as well as traditional NORP texts such as the Koran and hadith . Membership in the group is solidified by taking an oath , the content of which has been given variously as : being faithful to ORG ; being faithful to PERSON and its rules ; and spreading the words of the PERSON and sharing one ’s knowledge of NORP with others . PERSON enforcement and judicial authorities generally considered both those who had and had not taken the oath as full - fledged members .

In ORG interviews and in court testimony , PERSON ut - ORG members have overwhelmingly cited an interest in acquiring deeper knowledge of the tenets of ORG as their motivation for joining the group . ORG ut - GPE members in GPE , and likely elsewhere , regard the reemergence of the ORG as a practical goal , to be achieved through proselytism .

Members in GPE distribute literature or leaflets produced by the organization which include quotations from the Koran , calls for observance of the basic tenets of ORG , and analysis of world events affecting NORP , including denunciation of the mass arrest of independent NORP in GPE ...

ORG has documented CARDINAL cases of arrest and conviction of the group ’s members in GPE . The group itself estimated in DATE that police had arrested CARDINAL of its members in GPE during the government ’s campaign against independent ORG since DATE . By DATE the NORP section of PERSON ut - GPE estimated that the government of GPE had imprisoned CARDINAL of the group ’s followers . The NORP rights group ORG reported CARDINAL religiously and politically motivated arrests it had documented as of DATE ; the group estimated that CARDINAL of the NORP arrested for nonviolent crimes were those accused of PERSON ut - GPE membership . In addition to being arrested for membership and gathering to study , adherents of NORP ut - GPE have been arrested , sometimes en masse , for possession or distribution of the group ’s literature or , in some cases , because of simple , accidental proximity to those proselytizing for PERSON ...

Torture and Mistreatment in Pre - trial Detention

Widespread torture of detainees is common in criminal investigations in GPE . In the campaign against independent ORG , police have systematically employed torture to coerce confessions and statements incriminating others .

In DATE , the international community has taken notice of the pervasive and serious nature of torture in GPE and its use in the campaign against independent NORP ...

... Police and security agents torture independent NORP suspects during the investigative phase to compel confessions or testimony against others . The interrogation of an independent NORP generally centers on questions about the detainee ’s beliefs , affiliation with NORP groups , or association with well - known independent imams . The end product the police are seeking is a statement – prepared by police , signed by the detainee – that describes the detainee ’s religious belief , practice , and affiliation rather than a criminal act . Because many of those detained on religion - related charges are held incommunicado , the interrogation may last DATE .

Through torture and threats – on which we present details below – agents have coerced detainees to name members of religious organizations , people who have attended mosque with them , or even friends and neighbors who may not in fact have shared their religious beliefs or affiliation . They also have forced detainees to admit to associations with individuals unknown to them . Police then arrested those named , or brought them in as witnesses , often coercing them into testifying for the prosecution . This coercive strategy produces a perpetual flow of names for the police and security services to pursue . Police sometimes arrest a suspect and torture individuals unknown to him into testifying against him ... ”

The report summarises a number of cases of torture documented by ORG , describing methods of torture used against NORP detainees , including beatings by fist and with truncheons or metal rods , rape and sexual violence , electric shock , use of lit cigarettes or newspapers to burn the detainee , and asphyxiation with plastic bags or gas masks . The report also seeks to reveal the role torture plays in coercing testimony ; judicial refusal to investigate GPE allegations ; and the ORG practice of admitting as evidence testimony obtained under torture .

The report also indicates that although NORP law provides for access to legal counsel from the moment of arrest , the investigating police frequently pressure detainees not to seek counsel . When detainees or their families attempt to engage an independent defence lawyer , authorities often refuse requests from the lawyer for access to his or her client , until the police have secured a confession from the accused . Police frequently pressure detainees or their families to accept the services of ORG - appointed lawyers who do not defend their client ’s interests , and who are unlikely to lodge complaints against ill - treatment . Judges have ignored defendants’ court testimony about the torture they endured and have admitted as evidence confessions and other testimony obtained through torture during the investigation .

The DATE GPE ORG on Human Rights Practice , released on DATE , provides the following information in relation to GPE :

“ Although the law prohibits such practices , police and the ORG [ ORG ] routinely tortured , beat , and otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain confessions or incriminating information ... Defendants in trials often claimed that their confessions , on which the prosecution based its cases , were extracted as a result of torture ... During DATE the government took a few steps towards reform confined to education and outreach , while in large part it showed little will to address ORG conclusions ...

Authorities treated individuals suspected of extreme NORP political sympathies , particularly alleged members of ORG [ ORG ut - GPE ] , more harshly than ordinary criminals . There were credible reports that investigators subjected pretrial detainees suspected to be ORG members to particularly severe interrogation . After trial , authorities reportedly used disciplinary and punitive measures , including torture , more often with prisoners convicted of extremism than with ordinary inmates . Local human rights workers reported that common criminals were often paid or otherwise induced by authorities to beat ORG members . As in DATE there were numerous credible reports that officials in several prisons abused ORG members to obtain letters of repentance , which are required for a prisoner to be eligible for amnesty . According to ORG relatives , amnestied prisoners , and human rights activists , inmates who refused to write letters disavowing their connection to ORG were often beaten or sent into solitary confinement . During DATE inmates and a guard at CARDINAL prison corroborated reports that prison guards systematically beat suspected ORG members following the DATE and DATE terrorist attacks ...

Authorities continued to arbitrarily arrest persons on charges of extremist sentiments or activities , or association with banned religious groups ... Authorities made little distinction between actual members and those with marginal affiliation with the group , such as persons who had attended Koranic study sessions with the group .

As in DATE , there were reports that authorities arrested and prosecuted persons based on the possession of ORG literature . Coerced confessions and testimony were commonplace . Even persons generally known to belong to ORG stated that the cases against them were built not on actual evidence , which would have been abundantly available , but on planted material or false testimony ...

Defense attorneys had limited access in some cases to government - held evidence relevant to their GPE cases . However , in most cases a prosecution was based solely upon defendants’ confessions or incriminating testimony from state witnesses ... During DATE the ORG quoted a former ORG official who claimed that investigators often used beatings , psychotropic drugs , or threats against family members to obtain confessions from defendants ... In many cases , particularly those involving suspected ORG members , when the prosecution failed to produce confessions it relied solely on witness testimony , which was reportedly often also coerced ... ”

The NORP LAW states that the NORP criminal law is based on the LAW and recognised principles of international law such as the principle of legality , equality of citizens before the law , humanism and fairness ( LAW ) .

DATE . Article CARDINAL of LAW , entitled “ Attacks against the constitutional order of GPE ” , refers to public calls for unconstitutional change of the existing ORG structure , for the seizure of power or removal from power of legally elected or designated authorities or for the unconstitutional violation of the unity of the territory of GPE , as well as the dissemination of materials having such content . Such acts are punishable by a fine or up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . When committed by an organised group or in its interest , they are punishable by up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ( § CARDINAL ( b ) ) .

Article CARDINAL of the Code , entitled “ Establishing Proscribed Non - governmental and Religious Organisations ” , refers to establishing or resuming the activities of proscribed non - governmental and religious organisations , as well as active participation in their activities . Such acts are punishable by a fine or a term of imprisonment of DATE .

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code , entitled “ Preparation or dissemination of materials constituting a threat to public safety and public order ” , refers to the preparation or dissemination of materials expressing the ideology of religious extremism , separatism or fundamentalism , incitement to riot or the forced eviction of citizens or materials intended to cause public panic , after an official warning . Such acts are punishable by a fine or a term of imprisonment DATE .

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code , entitled “ Establishing , leading or participating in religious extremist , separatist , fundamentalist or other prohibited organisations ” , refers to the offence of establishing , leading or participating in religious extremist , separatist , fundamentalist or other prohibited organisations . Such acts are punishable by a term of imprisonment of DATE and , if they cause serious damage , DATE .

LAW states that the administration of justice is based on the principles of equality of citizens before the law and the courts , irrespective of their gender , race , nationality , language , religion , social origin , beliefs or personal or social status ( LAW ) . Judges , prosecutors and investigators must respect the reputation and honour of persons participating in the proceedings ( LAW ) . No one may be subjected to torture , violence and other forms of cruel or degrading treatment . Actions or decisions which are degrading , lead to the dissemination of a person ’s private information , damage his or her health , or unjustifiably cause physical or moral suffering are prohibited .

State authorities and public officers in charge of criminal proceedings must protect the rights and freedoms of the persons participating in those proceedings ( LAW ) . No one may be arrested or detained unless ordered by a court or prosecutor . A court or prosecutor must promptly release each person who is unlawfully detained beyond the time - limit authorised by the law or a court decision . A person ’s private life , inviolability of his or her home , correspondence and telephone conversations are protected by the law . Damage caused to the person as a result of a violation of his or her rights or freedoms in the course of criminal proceedings must be compensated for in compliance with the provisions of the Code .