Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON GPE , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL) PERSON , born in DATE .

They are NORP nationals and residents of the village of PERSON , PERSON district , GPE .

The facts of the case are linked to the application GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ... ( extracts ) ) , in that the CARDINAL relatives of the applicants in the present case were detained together with the husband of PERSON , PERSON , on DATE in the village of PERSON ( see below ) . The facts of the present case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants submitted that the village of PERSON had been under the firm control of the NORP military since DATE . Military checkpoints had been established at all roads leading into and out of the village .

The applicants submitted that early in the morning of DATE a convoy including CARDINAL armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) and CARDINAL other military vehicle - a ORG all - terrain car - conducted a “ sweeping ” operation in the village of PERSON . The local residents noted the hull numbers of CARDINAL APCs : CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , and partially of the UAZ vehicle as “ CARDINAL ” . The hull numbers of the other vehicles were obscured . The servicemen went to CARDINAL houses during the operation and detained CARDINAL men . The applicants submitted numerous affidavits about the events of DATE , produced by the family members of the detained and the neighbours . They also submitted a hand - drawn map of the village , indicating the location of the roadblocks and of the houses of the QUANTITY persons detained on DATE .

The first and second applicants are husband and wife . They were residents of ORG , but have lived for DATE at CARDINAL FAC , PERSON , as internally displaced persons . Their son PERSON , born in DATE , had lived with them in GPE since DATE . He had previously been a student at the ORG philological faculty , but in DATE he was seriously injured during a rocket attack on the PERSON central market . Following that injury he underwent several operations and left the university . He worked as a car mechanic and supported his parents , who were unemployed . The couple 's second son had died during the hostilities of ORG , and CARDINAL son had been detained by security services and ill - treated in DATE , following which he suffered from poor health . The third applicant is PERSON wife .

On TIME DATE the first CARDINAL applicants , PERSON and his wife ( the third applicant ) , their other son PERSON and his wife PERSON . , were at their home at CARDINAL FAC . At that time the third applicant and PERSON . were both pregnant . It was still dark outside and the family was sleeping when , at TIME , an ORG knocked down the fence and drove into the courtyard . A group of CARDINAL heavily armed servicemen in uniform entered the house and woke up the family . CARDINAL of the servicemen were masked , the rest were not . The applicants described them as “ contract soldiers ” , aged DATE . They had NORP features and spoke unaccented NORP . More servicemen remained outside on the hull of the ORG , while others took positions around the house .

Without producing any warrant or explanation , the soldiers forced the PERSON family members into the courtyard and onto the ground . They surrounded PERSON and beat him . The second and third applicants were also beaten when they asked for explanations , and the third applicant , PERSON pregnant wife , submitted that she had a miscarriage DATE . PERSON , who was taken from his bed barefoot and wearing only a light T - shirt , was hooded , his hands were tied behind his back and he was forced into an ORG . The first applicant tried to climb onto the ORG to give her son footwear , but was pushed away and hit by several soldiers . The soldiers fired into the air from automatic rifles in order to scare away those neighbours who tried to intervene .

NORP In support of their allegations the first and the second applicants submitted detailed statements to the PERSON , produced in DATE and in DATE . The third applicant also produced a statement in DATE . In particular , they explained that the third applicant had been in DATE of pregnancy and that after the miscarriage they had not applied to any medical institution , nor had they complained anywhere about this incident .

In their observations the Government submitted that no information about the alleged beatings of the second and third applicants or a miscarriage by the third applicant had been recorded in the medical institutions of the LOC district . They also stated that the third applicant 's current place of residence was unknown and that her relatives had refused to give any evidence on the subject .

The fourth and fifth applicants are the mother and sister of PERSON , born in DATE . They lived at CARDINAL FAC in GPE . PERSON worked as a guard at the local school and was not married . His brother PERSON was killed by unknown persons in DATE , along with CARDINAL other men who had gone to gather firewood near the river LOC . In DATE his father , the fourth applicant 's husband , died of a heart attack .

At TIME on DATE the fourth applicant and her son PERSON were at their home when an ORG pulled up outside the house . The fourth applicant was at TIME , and her son ORG was still asleep . The fifth applicant , ORG 's sister , was in hospital for a check - up . CARDINAL men in green uniform entered the house . They were not wearing masks and the fourth applicant reported that they had NORP features and spoke unaccented NORP .

The military did not introduce themselves or give reasons for the visit . They woke up PERSON and ordered him to dress quickly . They said they needed to question him , collected his passport and took him outside . The fourth applicant followed them and pleaded with them to question her son at home . An officer told her that if he was innocent he would soon return . The soldiers put PERSON into an ORG . The fourth applicant tried to climb onto the hull , but the soldiers swore at her and hit her with rifle butts until she fell . Several neighbours tried to come closer and intervene , but soldiers who had taken positions around the house shot in the air as a warning .

Once PERSON was inside , the ORG drove further along FAC . The fourth applicant and her neighbours clearly noted its hull number as CARDINAL . The fourth applicant followed it along the street and witnessed from a distance how it stopped at the Tovmerzayevs ' house and how another person ( PERSON ) was put into it . The fourth applicant also noticed several other APCs along the street , though she did not notice their numbers .

The sixth applicant is the mother of PERSON , who was born in DATE . In DATE he finished the seventh grade at school and thereafter helped his mother around the house . They lived at CARDINAL Lenina Street with the sixth applicant 's CARDINAL other children .

On DATE the sixth applicant , her daughter PERSON and CARDINAL sons , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , were sleeping at their home . At QUANTITY an ORG stopped at their house and a group of CARDINAL military servicemen surrounded the house , CARDINAL of them wearing masks . The applicant described them as heavily armed , wearing new camouflage uniforms and speaking unaccented NORP . CARDINAL servicemen entered the house , shouting and swearing . They pulled the sixth applicant 's CARDINAL sons onto the floor and asked their names . They then told PERSON to dress . The applicant 's oldest son asked them to take him instead of his DATE brother , but CARDINAL of the soldiers said “ We do n't need you ” . They took PERSON and placed him in an ORG with an obscured number . The applicant tried to get onto the ORG , but her eldest son pulled her off .

The sixth applicant asked a soldier with NORP features on the hull of the ORG where they were going , and he responded that they were going to the military commander 's office . The ORG drove along and stopped by a house further down the street to detain another person who was not at home . The sixth applicant followed the vehicle to the cemetery at the end of the village and then returned home .

The seventh and eighth applicants are the mother and sister of PERSON , born in DATE . He was unmarried and had worked at a shoe factory and at the market . They lived at CARDINAL FAC , together with the seventh applicant 's other children and grandchildren .

On DATE the seventh and eighth applicants and PERSON were at home . At TIME the applicants were awake , because the seventh applicant was planning to go to town and had to catch a bus ; the eighth applicant had to take care of the family 's cattle . PERSON was still in bed .

The seventh applicant opened the gate and at that point an ORG stopped outside their house . The woman was surprised and asked them if they were going to conduct a “ sweeping ” operation , but they did not answer . CARDINAL of the soldiers on the ORG asked “ Which gate ? ” and another pointed to the applicant 's . Immediately CARDINAL armed servicemen entered the courtyard . The applicants and neighbours described them as well armed and wearing green camouflage uniforms ; some of them were masked . The seventh applicant noted several men with NORP features among the servicemen .

The eighth applicant asked the seventh applicant to go into the house and watch to ensure that the soldiers did not “ plant ” anything there . The soldiers asked the eighth applicant where her brother was and went to his room . CARDINAL of them had a piece of paper and asked her “ Is that PERSON ? ” When she answered in the affirmative they put him on the floor and handcuffed him . CARDINAL of the servicemen asked about weapons , while others were searching the house and the car . They then placed PERSON in ORG no . CARDINAL , without permitting him to dress or to put on footwear , and drove away . The neighbours were not allowed to approach because the soldiers shot into the air . PERSON aunt , who came to the house because of the noise and tried to intervene , was pulled by the hair and hit by a soldier .

Finally , at around TIME on DATE servicemen on APCs CARDINAL and CARDINAL and UAZ CARDINAL drove to FAC , CARDINAL blocks away from the Tovmerzayevs ' house . At CARDINAL FAC they detained PERSON , husband of ORG . After the stop at the ORG ' house the APCs and other military vehicles left PERSON . Some of the military vehicles apparently drove towards PERSON , while others went in the direction of the CARDINALth regiment stationed near LOC . The families of the CARDINAL men detained on DATE in PERSON have had no news of them since .

In their observations the Government did not dispute most of the facts as presented by the applicants . They accepted as established that “ on DATE at TIME unidentified persons wearing camouflaged uniforms and masks and armed with automatic weapons , supported by armoured vehicles , arrived in PERSON and detained ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .- M.U. These men were subsequently taken by the unidentified persons in an unknown direction . ”

NORP Immediately after the detention of their family members the applicants started to search for them . The search was primarily carried out by the mothers of the detained men , together with PERSON , the applicant in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . On numerous occasions , both in person and in writing , they applied to prosecutors at various levels , to ORG , to the Special Envoy of the NORP President in GPE for rights and freedoms , to military commanders , ORG ( ORG ) , to the administrative authorities in GPE , to the media and to public figures . The applicants also personally visited detention centres , police stations , military bases and prisons in GPE as well as further afield in LOC .

On DATE , immediately after the arrests , the CARDINAL mothers , together with ORG and NORP , the head of the NORP administration , drove in the PERSON ' family minibus to PERSON , the district centre , to inquire about the whereabouts of their relatives . At the military commander 's office in PERSON the applicants unsuccessfully sought to meet with the commander , General PERSON They were told by the staff at the military commander 's office that they had not received any detainees that TIME . They received a similar answer at the police station .

DATE , on DATE , the applicants again travelled to PERSON . Abdula D. , the head of the village administration , was permitted to meet with General PERSON , who allegedly confirmed to him that the men had been detained at the military commander 's office and would be released in DATE .

Having waited for DATE , the applicants again visited the commander 's office in PERSON , accompanied by the head of the village administration . About ten days later the commander 's office staff denied that the detainees had been there .

At some point in DATE the applicants managed to meet with General PERSON , who denied that his servicemen had participated in a military operation in PERSON on the date in question . At that time the applicants spotted APC no . CARDINAL in the courtyard of the commander 's office . At their insistence the commander questioned the driver of the vehicle about the events of DATE . The driver confirmed that CARDINAL men had been detained and driven away in the ORG on DATE , but claimed that they had been handed over to other military servicemen at a checkpoint .

The applicants unsuccessfully tried to meet with the officers of the military prosecutor 's office in LOC in order to have the drivers of the APCs and other servicemen questioned .

In addition to personal visits , the applicants addressed numerous letters to the prosecutors and other authorities , in which they set out the facts of their relatives ' detention and asked for assistance and details about the investigation . The applicants have submitted copies of the more or less standard letters they wrote .

The applicants received hardly any substantive information from official bodies about the investigation into the disappearances . On several occasions they were sent copies of letters forwarding their requests to the different prosecutors ' services . Below is a summary of letters retained by the applicants and the replies they received from the authorities .

On DATE the first applicant wrote to the head of the LOC administration in relation to ORG detention and requested assistance in finding him . She also mentioned the “ rough ” treatment meted out to herself and other family members in the course of her son 's arrest .

Either on DATE or immediately after , in CARDINAL identically worded complaints , the applicant wrote to the military commander of the LOC district General PERSON , the military prosecutor of the LOC district and the head of the LOC temporary district police department ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the first applicant wrote to the military prosecutors of military units FAC . DATE and DATE , based in LOC and PERSON ( PERSON ) , stating details of her son 's detention and requesting their help in finding him . Also on DATE the first applicant wrote a similar letter to the head of the GPE village administration , NORP

On DATE the first applicant wrote to the State PERSON member for GPE and to the Special Envoy of the NORP President in GPE for rights and freedoms .

On DATE the first applicant wrote a complaint to the NORP district prosecutor 's office ( “ the district prosecutor 's office ” ) , with copies to the head of administration of GPE and the commander of the federal forces in GPE . She stated the facts of her son 's detention and asked for assistance in finding him . She submitted that the servicemen had thrown her son on the floor and taken him away undressed , beaten her husband on the head with a rifle butt and had treated the women of the house “ rudely and incorrectly ” .

On DATE the applicant received a reply from the member of ORG for GPE , in which he informed her that her letter had been forwarded to ORG and that he would try to establish whether her son had been detained by the authorities .

On DATE the first applicant again wrote to the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE and the heads of administration of PERSON and the NORP district , with requests for information about PERSON .

On DATE the district prosecutor office informed the applicant that the investigation into her son 's kidnapping had been suspended . The letter did not give reasons for the suspension , but informed her that she could appeal against the decision to the district prosecutor or to a сourt .

On DATE the first applicant received a copy of a letter from ORG , forwarding her compliant to the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE ORG informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son 's kidnapping had been suspended on DATE due to a failure to identify the culprits ( LAW part CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) . The applicant was invited to address further queries to the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE and on DATE the district prosecutor 's office acknowledged receipt of the applicant 's complaints and informed her that the investigation into PERSON “ disappearance ” had been suspended .

DATE . On DATE the Chief Military Prosecutor 's Office requested the military prosecutor 's office of ORG in LOC ( UGA ) to investigate the “ disappearance ” of the first applicant 's son and of the other men detained on DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint ( dated DATE ) to the military prosecutor of the ORG , summarising the facts of her son 's disappearance and the efforts to find him and requesting assistance .

On DATE ORG forwarded complaints by CARDINAL applicants ( PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) to the district prosecutor 's office . On DATE and DATE the CARDINAL women were informed by the district prosecutor 's office that their complaints would be looked into .

On DATE ORG informed the first applicant that they had forwarded her letter to the military prosecutor of the ORG . The letter stated that investigation file no . CARDINAL had been sent to the military prosecutor 's office on DATE .

In DATE the Government of GPE twice informed the first applicant that her complaints had been forwarded to the military prosecutors , to ORG and to the local department of ORG .

On DATE the first applicant asked the district prosecutor 's office to give her an update on the progress of the investigation and to grant her victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE the military prosecutor of the ORG forwarded the applicant 's complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE .

On DATE ORG of the Interior replied to the deputy head of the investigative department of ORG , stating that the criminal case opened into ORG disappearance had been forwarded to the military prosecutors on DATE .

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the first applicant that the materials of the case file did not prove the involvement of military servicemen in the crime under investigation .

On DATE , DATE and DATE ORG informed the applicant in similarly worded letters that the decision of DATE to suspend the investigation into her son 's kidnapping had been quashed and that the investigation had been reopened on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the military commander of the NORP district informed the applicant that the district prosecutor 's office was investigating her son 's “ disappearance ” .

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . ORG replied to the first applicant 's complaints of DATE and DATE and DATE . The letter stated that the criminal investigation opened in relation to the kidnapping of CARDINAL men in DATE was pending with that office . The letter did not say whether the investigation was suspended or ongoing , but invited the applicant to come to the office to take part in procedural steps and to obtain access to the case file . The letter also stated that no evidence had been obtained which could link the kidnapping to any military servicemen .

At some point the applicant wrote to the all - NORP ORG channel , addressing their programme “ Attention : Search ! ” She asked the journalists to help in finding her son PERSON . In reply the ORG stated that work in GPE was too dangerous for journalists .

On DATE the fourth applicant received a copy of a letter from the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE to ORG , stating that there was no evidence to conclude that the criminal acts in question had been committed by UGA servicemen .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the fourth applicant that an investigation had been opened by their office , under LAW part QUANTITY of LAW , in relation to the kidnapping of PERSON .

On DATE and DATE ORG informed the fourth applicant that her complaints had been forwarded to the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that the investigation into her son 's kidnapping ( file no . DATE ) had been suspended . The letter did not give reasons for the suspension , but informed her that she could appeal against the decision to ORG or to a сourt .

On DATE the military prosecutor for ORG forwarded the applicant 's complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the fourth applicant that her complaint of CARDINAL DATE about her son 's disappearance could not be considered , because it had not been signed by her . The applicant was invited to the prosecutor 's office to obtain information concerning the criminal investigation .

DATE . On DATE the applicant 's complaint dated DATE was accepted by the military prosecutor of the ORG . The complaint summarised the applicant 's efforts to find her son and requested urgent assistance .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the fourth applicant , in reply to a request from ORG made on her behalf , that criminal case no . DATE had been opened by that office in relation to her son 's kidnapping . All necessary and possible measures had been taken , but on DATE the investigation had been suspended due to the failure to identify the culprits . The letter further informed the applicant that measures to find her son were continuing and that she could challenge the decision to suspend the investigation .

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the fourth applicant that troops under their jurisdiction had not detained her son . The letter advised her to approach the local police .

On DATE the applicant complained to the district prosecutor 's office . She stated that she had not received any information about the course of the investigation and requested updated information about its progress , and asked that she be granted victim status .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the fourth applicant that criminal case no . DATE had been suspended . Actions aimed at locating ORG whereabouts would continue . The applicant was also informed that she had been granted victim status .

On an unspecified date NORP , the head of the GPE village administration , addressed the Special Envoy of the NORP President in ORG , asking him to intervene and help to find PERSON .

On DATE the fourth applicant was granted victim status in criminal investigation no . DATE into her son 's abduction .

On DATE the sixth applicant prepared a letter to the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE about the detention of her son , PERSON . The complaint was submitted on DATE .

DATE . On DATE the sixth applicant complained about her son 's detention and requested his release and information about his whereabouts from the district prosecutor 's office , the military commander and the head of the VOVD .

On DATE the sixth applicant received a copy of the letter from the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE to ORG , which stated that there was no evidence to conclude that the criminal acts had been committed by UGA servicemen .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that an investigation had been opened by their office in relation to the kidnapping of her son under LAW part QUANTITY of LAW .

On DATE the applicant was informed by the district prosecutor 's office that the file number allocated to the investigation into her son 's kidnapping was DATE .

On DATE ORG forwarded the applicant 's complaint to the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE ORG informed the sixth applicant that her complaints had been forwarded to ORG of the Interior , the district prosecutor 's office and the ORG , the military prosecutor 's office and ORG .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that they were investigating criminal case no . DATE and taking steps to establish her son 's whereabouts .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the sixth applicant that the investigation into her son 's kidnapping had been suspended .

On DATE the military prosecutor for the LOC military circuit forwarded the applicant 's complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit no . FAC .

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the applicant that they had requested information about PERSON from the GPE department of the ORG , the commander of the ORG and the head of the operative headquarters for coordination of the anti - terrorist operation in LOC .

On DATE the GPE department of the ORG replied to the applicant that they had no information about the whereabouts or activities of her son . It further informed the applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the military prosecutors .

On DATE ORG forwarded complaints by CARDINAL applicants ( PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) to the district prosecutor 's office . On DATE and DATE the CARDINAL women were informed by that office that their complaints would be taken into account .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor 's office . She stated that she had not received any reliable information about the course of the investigation , requested updated information about its progress and asked that she be granted victim status .

On DATE the district prosecutor informed the sixth applicant that the criminal investigation into the kidnapping of her son had been suspended . Actions aimed at locating Mr PERSON 's whereabouts were continuing .

On an unspecified date PERSON , the head of the GPE village administration , addressed the Special Envoy of the NORP President in ORG , asking him to intervene and help find the sixth applicant 's son .

On DATE the seventh applicant received a copy of a letter from the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE to ORG , stating that there was no evidence to conclude that the criminal acts had been committed by UGA servicemen .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that an investigation had been opened by their office , under LAW part QUANTITY of LAW , in relation to the kidnapping of PERSON .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that a criminal investigation into her son 's kidnapping had been opened under file no . DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the seventh applicant that the district prosecutor 's office was investigating criminal case no . DATE and taking steps to establish her son 's whereabouts .

On DATE the Government of GPE informed the seventh applicant that her complaints had been forwarded to the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE and on DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the seventh applicant that the investigation into her son 's kidnapping had been suspended and that she could appeal against the decision to a prosecutor or to the court .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the head of the ORG administration and asked for his help in finding her son .

On DATE the military prosecutor for the LOC military circuit forwarded the seventh applicant 's complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE .

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . ORG informed the seventh applicant that they were not aware of PERSON detention and had not issued any documents in that respect . The letter further stated that a question about the applicant 's son 's whereabouts had been put to the ORG headquarters and that she should contact the local department of the interior in connection with all issues related to the search for the missing persons .

On DATE the GPE department of the ORG replied to the applicant that they had no information about the whereabouts of her son . It further informed the applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the military prosecutors .

On DATE the seventh applicant 's letter , bearing the date of DATE , was accepted by the military prosecutor of the ORG . The letter stated the circumstances of her son 's detention and requested information about his whereabouts and the reasons for his detention .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor 's office . She stated that she had not received any reliable information about the course of the investigation , requested updated information about its progress and asked to be granted victim status .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office responded that the investigation in criminal case no . DATE had been suspended .

On an unspecified date NORP , the head of ORG administration , addressed the Special Envoy of the NORP President in ORG , asking him to intervene and help in finding the seventh applicant 's son .

The applicants were thus informed that criminal investigations had been opened in respect of the kidnappings of their relatives : no . CARDINAL in respect of PERSON , no . DATE in respect of PERSON , no . DATE in respect of PERSON and no . DATE in respect of PERSON . From the letters received from the different authorities , the applicants could also understand that at some point the investigations were joined under no . DATE , initially opened in relation to the kidnapping of PERSON . The applicants were not informed by the prosecutors which steps had been taken in order to find their relatives , nor were they allowed access to the case files . In DATE the first applicant was informed by ORG that the decision to suspend the investigation into her son 's kidnapping had been quashed and that the investigation had been reopened . None of the applicants have received information on the progress of the investigation since DATE .

The applicants also understood that in DATE the investigation had been transferred from the district prosecutor 's office to the military prosecutors . At some subsequent point the case file was returned to the district office . However in DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . ORG invited the first applicant to visit the office and informed her that the file was with them . The letter did not indicate whether the proceedings were pending or suspended at that time .

In their observations submitted in DATE the Government did not dispute the information concerning the apprehension and investigation into the kidnapping of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . Referring to the information obtained from ORG , the ORG stated :

“ On DATE at TIME unidentified persons wearing camouflaged uniforms and masks and armed with automatic weapons , supported by armoured vehicles , had arrived to PERSON and detained ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .- M.U. These men were subsequently taken by the unidentified persons to an unknown direction .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the NORP district prosecutor 's office opened CARDINAL criminal investigation files into the kidnappings : CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE under LAW part CARDINAL ( a ) and ( g ) of LAW .

Criminal investigation file no . DATE concerning the kidnapping of PERSON .- M.U. had been transferred for investigation to the military prosecutor of the ORG . ”

The Government also stated that the investigation had not confirmed the involvement of federal servicemen in the kidnapping of the applicants ' relatives . The indicated ORG hull numbers were not listed in the relevant registers . The investigations were adjourned and reopened on several occasions and were most recently resumed on DATE . Their progress was monitored by ORG .

In their additional Memorandum submitted in DATE the ORG submitted further details of the investigations . They stated that criminal case file no . CARDINAL had been opened on DATE into the kidnapping of PERSON . On DATE the first applicant had been questioned and granted victim status . She was again questioned on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The second applicant was questioned on DATE and confirmed the circumstances of his son 's detention . CARDINAL neighbours were questioned but could not indicate the identity of the kidnappers . The site of the crime was inspected at some point , but no relevant evidence was discovered .

According to the Government , criminal case file no . DATE into the abduction of PERSON was opened on DATE . The fourth applicant was questioned on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . She was also granted victim status . In DATE QUANTITY neighbours were questioned by the local police , but they were not aware of the identity of the perpetrators of the crime .

The Government further specified that on DATE criminal investigation file no . DATE had been opened into the abduction of PERSON . The sixth applicant was questioned on DATE and DATE . She was also granted victim status in the proceedings . CARDINAL of her neighbours and the former military commander of the LOC district , General PERSON , had also been questioned . An inspection of the site of the crime had taken place , but had produced no results .

Finally , they submitted that on DATE criminal case no . CARDINAL [ this should probably be no . DATE ] had been opened into the abduction of PERSON . The seventh and eighth applicants were questioned and granted victim status on DATE and DATE respectively . The investigation also questioned CARDINAL of their neighbours and relatives , the head of the ORG administration , General PERSON and a serviceman from the military commander 's office . An inspection of the site of the crime had produced no results .

No other witnesses to the crimes were identified by the investigation .

According to the Government , in DATE a number of information requests were forwarded to the relevant bodies concerning special operations carried out by the military forces . Despite these efforts , no information was obtained which would imply that the CARDINAL men had been detained by federal forces . Their names were not found in the registers of persons detained on suspicion of committing a criminal offence or arrested by way of administrative procedure .

The Government conceded that the CARDINAL investigations had been repeatedly suspended and reopened , on account of a failure to identify the culprits . They alleged that the victims had been informed of all the decisions made . The proceedings in criminal case no . CARDINAL had been reopened on DATE and , in criminal cases nos . DATE , DATE and DATE on DATE .

In their latest submissions of DATE the ORG informed the ORG that on DATE criminal investigation files nos . DATE CARDINAL , DATE and DATE had been joined under no . CARDINAL . The reason for the joinder was the establishment by the investigation of the fact that Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had been kidnapped by the same group of unidentified persons , who had travelled around in an ORG with hull number CARDINAL .

The Government also submitted that the investigation had been reopened on DATE . In DATE and DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL female witnesses and the first , second and sixth applicants , who had victim status in the criminal proceedings . The ORG also stated that in DATE the investigation requested ORG and ORG to submit information from their archives about the participation of their personnel in the special operation in PERSON on DATE .

Among the documents submitted by the Government , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE the deputy prosecutor of GPE ordered that the proceedings be reopened and summarised the information available by DATE . According to that document , the investigation had established that the CARDINAL men had been kidnapped by a group of unidentified persons who had used an ORG with hull CARDINAL and CARDINAL other APCs .

On DATE the prosecutor issued written directions for the investigation . The prosecutor ordered that the bullets and cartridges left behind when the kidnappers had shot in the air to prevent relatives from interfering with the abduction be found , and that ballistic and other expert reports be carried out . He also ordered that information be collected about any special identification marks on the bodies of the missing men , so that a search could be organised through the register of unidentified corpses . He further directed information to be collected from the ORG central archives about the special operations carried out in GPE in DATE ; for it to be confirmed whether the ORG with hull CARDINAL had indeed been attached to the NORP military commander 's office and the crew of that vehicle to be questioned . The document referred to a witness statement by NORP who had served in DATE in the military commander 's office of LOC and who had been a crew member of ORG CARDINAL . According to the prosecutor , NORP testified that in DATE he and other members of the crew had been involved , using the ORG , in a special operation in NORP and had detained QUANTITY civilians . After their arrests he had returned to the military commander 's office . The QUANTITY detainees had been taken in CARDINAL other APCs towards the village of GPE . In view of this testimony , the prosecutor ordered that ORG , the military commander of LOC , be questioned and that all details relevant to the special operation of DATE in PERSON be obtained from him ( establishment of the units that had carried out the special operation , identification and questioning of the officers - in - charge ; finding the persons who had been in charge of the detainees and establishing where they had been taken ) . The document concluded by stating that if sufficient evidence of the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction was obtained , the investigation should be transferred to the military prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office decided not to open a criminal investigation into an allegation by the sixth applicant that money and jewellery had been stolen from her home . The decision stated that , in her application of DATE , the sixth applicant had alleged that during the arrest of her son PERSON the perpetrators had also taken money and valuables . On DATE the sixth applicant was questioned and stated that the money and valuables had been found afterwards , but that she had forgotten to inform the investigation of this . On this basis the investigator ordered not to open criminal proceedings into the theft . The decision was countersigned by the sixth applicant .

On DATE the investigation was adjourned . On CARDINAL DATE it was again reopened with instructions to carry out the steps as listed in the prosecutor 's decision of DATE .

NORP Despite specific requests by the ORG on CARDINAL occasions , the Government did not submit copies of the documents to which they referred , providing only several copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status , all issued after DATE , as well as copies of several notifications to the relatives of the adjournment and reopening of the proceedings . Relying on the information obtained from ORG , the ORG stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants of criminal proceedings .

PERSON , the wife of PERSON , the fifth man detained on DATE in PERSON , applied to ORG GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . Within these proceedings the ORG first denied that PERSON had been apprehended by law - enforcement or security bodies and suggested that he had been abducted by members of a terrorist organisation with a view to discrediting the federal forces .

Later both parties submitted to the ORG that on DATE the criminal investigation into the abduction of PERSON had been closed on the ground that no criminal offence had been committed . On DATE the applicant 's victim status in the criminal proceedings related to the kidnapping of her husband was withdrawn . She was informed at that stage that her husband had been detained by military servicemen and he had been subsequently released . The detention had been carried out in accordance with LAW and LAW . According to the Government , on DATE military servicemen , acting in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW , had detained PERSON on suspicion of involvement in CARDINAL of the bandit groups active in the district . However , his involvement had not been established , and he had been transferred to the head of the PERSON administration ( who had subsequently died ) with a view to being returned home . Thus , no abduction had been committed and the actions of the servicemen who had detained Mr PERSON had not constituted any offence . Mr PERSON 's further absence from his place of residence was not connected to his detention by military servicemen , so the applicant had suffered no pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage . The Government did not submit any documents of substance from the investigation file concerning ORG abduction .

In its judgment the ORG found it established to the standard of proof “ beyond reasonable doubt ” that PERSON had been detained by the security forces on DATE . No records had been drawn up in respect of his detention , questioning or release . After that date he “ disappeared ” and his family had had no news of him . He could thus be presumed dead following unacknowledged detention and the responsibility for his death lay with the ORG .

In DATE the applicants informed the ORG CARDINAL incidents in respect of the second applicant . According to the applicants ' representatives , on DATE and DATE a large group of military personnel arrived at the first and second applicants ' house at CARDINAL FAC in GPE . On both occasions the servicemen arrived in TIME in several APCs , broke into the house without identifying themselves or giving any reasons for the intrusion , conducted an unsanctioned search and confiscated a number of items .

According to the applicants , on DATE the servicemen severely beat the second applicant , who is a pensioner and disabled ( he is blind in CARDINAL eye ) , on his head and torso , knocking him unconscious . They also threatened to shoot the first applicant , her daughter - in - law and DATE granddaughter . When leaving they took with them household items of some value and a copy of the application to the ORG , as well as a file containing correspondence with various authorities maintained by the first applicant in relation to her son 's disappearance .

The second applicant submitted that he had been severely physically traumatised by the beatings and had difficulty in walking . He submitted that he had visited CARDINAL hospitals where doctors performed X - rays and confirmed concussions to the ribs and spinal column , but refused to issue him with any medical documents , fearing reprisals . The first applicant also submitted that immediately after the incident she had applied to the prosecutor 's office , but they refused to accept her complaint or to conduct an investigation into it .

On DATE the masked servicemen who arrived at the ORG ' family house again searched the house , hit the second applicant in the back several times , dragged him into the garden and dropped him face down .

On DATE the ORG , in accordance with Rule CARDINAL of ORG , gave notice of the application and of the complaint about harassment to ORG . In their observations the Government stated that a prosecutor 's check had been conducted into these complaints . Within this check the first and the second applicants had been questioned but denied that they had submitted such complaints to ORG . They allegedly stated that on the said dates military servicemen had conducted an identity check in their house , but that no unlawful actions had been committed . On DATE the district prosecutor 's office refused to initiate criminal proceedings due to an absence of corpus delicti . The Government did not submit any documents relating to these proceedings .

In her submissions of DATE the fourth applicant alleged that a number of checks had been carried at her house in DATE by security servicemen , who failed to identify themselves or to present her with reasons for the searches .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-3-c

Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence in GPE . CARDINAL Prison in the NORP region .

The applicant had had a relationship with his neighbour , PERSON He received from her a duplicate of the key to her house , which he never returned . The relationship was terminated in DATE at the instigation of PERSON , whose husband had returned home from a long business trip .

During TIME DATE Mr M. , the husband of PERSON , was sleeping in his house , which was locked from the inside , while his wife was at work , and was attacked by a man wearing a mask . The victim 's son , DATE , who was sleeping in the same room , was woken by the noise and saw the intruder leaving the room with an object which looked like a stick . After the incident the entrance door to PERSON house remained locked . PERSON died without regaining consciousness .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was arrested on police premises on suspicion of infliction of grievous bodily harm on Mr M. causing his death ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) remanded the applicant in custody in NORP no . CARDINAL ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) at the investigator 's request . The court based its decision on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant , as well as the fact that he had no family of his own and might therefore abscond .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's pre - trial detention to DATE . It justified this decision with the necessity to undertake a number of investigative measures , the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the inherent risk of his absconding or hindering the investigation if at liberty . The court examined the applicant 's argument about his frail health and noted , referring to a medical report , that his condition was not incompatible with detention .

During both the pre - trial investigation and the judicial proceedings the applicant 's lawyer introduced numerous requests for the applicant 's release on bail , referring to his illness and specific medical needs which could not be accommodated by the PERSON administration and placed an excessive financial burden on his parents ( for more details see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . It was also noted in the requests that the applicant did not have a criminal record and had a permanent place of residence and elderly parents to care for . By way of bail the applicant 's father offered his minibus , whose value was estimated at CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) , which at the time was equal to QUANTITY ( ORG ) .

By rulings of CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG rejected the aforementioned requests for the applicant 's release . The reasoning of all those CARDINAL rulings was identical and read as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] is accused of a serious crime punishable by imprisonment of DATE . Therefore , to prevent [ him ] from attempting to abscond or hindering the establishment of the truth , the preventive measure DATE detention DATE should remain unchanged . ”

CARDINAL of the rulings contained an additional phrase following the first sentence in the above quotation :

“ There are considerable discrepancies in the witnesses '

All the rulings , with the exception of that of DATE , also noted that the applicant was “ free to address requests to the [ GPE ] administration for medical assistance under the [ legislation on pre - trial detention ] . ”

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , in its ruling ordering an additional investigation in the case , noted that “ the preventive measure in respect of [ the applicant was to ] be unchanged – pre - trial detention ” ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG , following a preparatory hearing prior to the applicant 's retrial ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) , rejected his request for release on bail or subject to an undertaking not to abscond . The court noted that the applicant was suspected of a dangerous crime and there was a risk of his absconding given his young age , single status and the fact that he had no children . The court examined the applicant 's argument about his health and noted , referring to some medical findings , that it was not incompatible with detention .

On DATE the police searched the applicant 's house and seized the key to PERSON house . The applicant was delivered to the police station , where he was questioned from TIME as a witness . He denied involvement in the crime being investigated .

Later that evening , at TIME , the applicant was arrested on police premises on suspicion of infliction of grievous bodily harm on Mr M. causing his death . The arrest report listed all the possible reasons for an arrest contained in the report template , without giving any details . As noted there , the applicant refused to sign it , for unspecified reasons .

At an unspecified time on DATE the applicant wrote a statement of surrender to the authorities ( “ явка з повинною ” ) , in which he confessed to beating PERSON to death with a car axle ( kept in the applicant 's garage ) . The investigator accepted that statement , relying on LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

On DATE according to the applicant , at TIME – the investigator delivered an “ Act of explanation to the suspect of his rights ” . It contained the applicant 's handwritten note as follows : “ For this questioning , I waive legal assistance . I will be testifying of my own will . ” The applicant also signed a formal legal assistance waiver “ for the period of questioning ” , and the investigator accepted it .

Later on DATE the applicant was questioned as a suspect and repeated his confession .

In TIME of DATE the applicant was questioned again , during which he drew the car axle in question and stated that he would be able to recognise it .

At some point during DATE on DATE the applicant 's parents signed a contract for legal representation by lawyer PERSON The lawyer tried to get access to the applicant , but was refused it on the pretext that he was being questioned as a witness and therefore his status did not warrant legal representation .

During TIME , TIME and TIME , a videotaped reconstruction of the crime was conducted , during which the applicant again repeated his confession .

On DATE the classification of the investigated crime was changed from infliction of grievous bodily harm causing the victim 's death to premeditated murder .

On DATE the applicant 's parents signed a contract with lawyer NORP for legal representation of the applicant , and on DATE they informed lawyer PERSON that her services were not needed any longer .

On DATE lawyer NORP requested to be involved in the investigations as the applicant 's legal representative . The investigator granted the request , and he received permission to have meetings with the applicant “ without any time restrictions ” .

On DATE , DATE , the investigator delivered another “ Act of the explanation to the suspect of his rights ” , in which the applicant noted that he wished to be represented by lawyer NORP

As soon as the applicant was legally represented he retracted all his earlier confession statements .

On DATE the pre - trial investigation was declared complete and the applicant was committed for trial .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . It dismissed his not - guilty plea made at the hearing as untruthful and found his guilt proved by the confessions he had made on DATE and repeated in the course of the reconstruction of the crime on DATE , as well as the corroborating material evidence ( the duplicate key and the car axle ) . The court noted that the applicant had had explained to him his right not to incriminate himself before he had confessed and that he had voluntarily waived his right to legal representation . Having heard lawyer PERSON , who stated that she had been refused a meeting with the applicant on DATE , the court found her allegation unsubstantiated , with a reference to “ a thorough investigation into the matter ” . The court also found no evidence that the applicant had admitted guilt under duress , given the fact that he had raised no complaints in that regard before any authorities .

The applicant appealed , alleging that the sole evidence of his guilt had been his confession extracted by the police under duress and in the absence of a lawyer . He submitted in particular that during the initial questioning and investigative activities he had been deprived of his medicines , and that he had not been receiving proper nutrition , water and sleep . Moreover , according to the applicant , he had been threatened with deprivation of legal assistance unless he confessed , and the police officers from time to time hit him on the back of the head with their hands or files . The applicant also insisted that he could not be regarded as having surrendered to the police under LAW ORG , as presented by the investigator , given the fact that prior to his statement in that regard he had already been arrested as a suspect . Furthermore , lawyer PERSON had not been allowed to see him on DATE , that is after his arrest , on the ground that he was being questioned as a witness , but not because he had waived his right to legal assistance .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case for additional investigation , having allowed the applicant 's appeal in part . It found in particular that an additional investigation and a retrial were required in order to rectify certain shortcomings . ORG noted that the applicant 's conviction had largely been based on mere presumptions , namely that ORG had relied on the confession he had made during the pre - trial investigation in the absence of a lawyer ; this confession was not corroborated by any strong evidence against him . It further criticised the first - instance court for its failure to address the applicant 's complaint that he had had no access to a lawyer following his arrest as a suspect . Although it disregarded the lawyer 's statements made under oath as untruthful , ORG did not initiate criminal proceedings against her for perjury . According to ORG , the first - instance court had selectively admitted and interpreted evidence ( thus , according to the report of the first questioning of the victim 's son , he had replied in the negative to a quite suggestive question from the investigator as to whether the intruder looked like the applicant to him , while it was noted in the verdict that he had stated the contrary ) . Lastly , ORG pointed out some issues , which , although pertinent , remained uninvestigated : for example , that the victim was visited by unidentified persons on the eve of his murder , and the disorder in his house , which was not mentioned in the applicant 's confession .

Following the additional investigation , on DATE the applicant was again charged with premeditated murder .

On DATE the ORG delivered a ruling , refusing to institute criminal proceedings against the investigator who had allegedly refused the applicant 's lawyer permission to represent him on DATE . The prosecutor noted firstly that on DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness and therefore did not require legal representation , and secondly that even when he was recognised as a suspect he had voluntarily waived his right to legal assistance .

On DATE the prosecutor delivered another ruling refusing to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant 's allegation of unlawful arrest and ill - treatment . The prosecutor referred in particular to the statements by the police officers involved , who denied any coercion . He also took into account the fact that the applicant had not raised any complaints about his health .

On DATE the applicant was indicted as charged , and on the following day the case was sent to the court for trial .

On DATE ORG held a preparatory hearing .

On DATE it issued a new judgment which in its operative part , was identical to that of CARDINAL DATE .

NORP The court examined the applicant 's complaint that he had had no access to a lawyer and dismissed it as unsubstantiated : on one hand , the court referred to the investigator 's statements , according to which the lawyer had not submitted any documents to him authorising her to represent the applicant ; and , on the other hand , it noted that the contract for legal representation submitted to it by the defence had indicated the applicant ( but not his parents ) as a party , while he was in detention at that time and could not have signed it . Furthermore , it was mentioned in the judgment that the prosecutor had examined the applicant 's allegation that the investigator had refused to allow the lawyer to see him , and refused to institute criminal proceedings against the investigator for lack of corpus delicti in his actions , which the applicant had failed to challenge . The court also noted that on DATE the applicant had waived his right to legal assistance . It dismissed his allegation of duress , because the applicant had not complained to anybody about it apart from his father . In any event , the prosecuting authorities had already examined that allegation and rejected it , and the applicant had not appealed against that decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court therefore concluded that the applicant “ had not been refused access to a lawyer ” .

The judgment further referred to the statements of the victim 's son , who had not recognised the murderer , although he noted that he was the same height as the applicant . The court further noted that although several witnesses had seen CARDINAL unidentified persons looking for Mr M. on the eve of his murder , this fact did not negate the finding of the applicant 's guilt . The court made a similar observation concerning the disorder in the victim 's house not mentioned in the applicant 's confession . It also relied on the material evidence obtained on the basis of the applicant 's confession , namely the car axle found in his garage , having explained the lack of any traces of the crime on it with the fact that the applicant had wrapped it in cloth and plastic , which he had later burnt .

The applicant appealed against the judgment as based on unlawfully obtained confession statements and lacking a solid evidential basis . He reiterated his earlier grievances , namely that his right to defence during the early stages of the investigation had been restricted , and argued that ORG had failed to address a number of specific issues raised in ORG of Appeal ruling of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant 's conviction , finding that the first - instance court had rightly relied on his confession statements as they had been given in compliance with the legislation on criminal procedure and were corroborated by other evidence .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's request for leave to appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated .

The applicant has been suffering for DATE from diabetes insipidus ( нецукровий діабет ) . In DATE he was recognised as falling into the third category of disability ( the mildest ) on account of that condition . Apart from the diagnosis and the aforementioned fact about his disability , the applicant did not provide the ORG with any details about his medical condition .

According to a note issued on DATE by the local clinic at the request of the applicant 's lawyer , the applicant had been being monitored by an endocrinologist , who had prescribed him certain antidiuretic hormones , which cost about ORG CARDINAL a package . The clinic provided the applicant with CARDINAL package a month free of charge , while the required intake was CARDINAL packages .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer wrote a letter to the PERSON administration in which he referred to the applicant 's medical needs as outlined above and enquired whether the GPE was able to provide him with the medication he required . The reply was that the GPE was providing the applicant with some symptomatic treatment . As to the “ expensive medications of narrow specification ” , such as the antidiuretic hormone referred to , the administration was ready to accept those from the applicant 's relatives . It was also noted in the letter that for the time being the applicant had an adequate supply of that medication .

On DATE the applicant authorised his father to represent him in the proceedings before the ORG . The prison administration countersigned the authority form .

DATE . On DATE the ORG received a letter from the applicant 's father dated DATE , in which he complained in particular that his son had been deprived of legal assistance for DATE after his arrest and that a lawyer had been admitted to him only after he had made confession statements while he was in a state of physical and emotional exhaustion .

Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW concerning the right to legal assistance and the right not to incriminate oneself can be found in the judgment of DATE in the case of NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

The Criminal Code envisages imprisonment of DATE for deliberate murder without aggravating circumstances ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) and DATE for deliberate infliction of grievous bodily injuries causing death ( LAW ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) concerning preventive measures pending trial are quoted in the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE .

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the ORG , as well as the relevant extracts from Resolution No . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE “ on the practice of applying bail as a preventive measure ” , can be found in the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

As regards admissions of guilt , LAW ORG requires verification of a suspect 's statements . His or her admission of guilt may provide a basis for the accusation only if corroborated by the totality of the evidence . LAW ORG defines a statement of surrender to the authorities as follows : “ a personal voluntary written or verbal statement made by a person , before the institution of criminal proceedings against him or her , to an enquiry authority , a police officer , an investigator , a prosecutor , a judge or a court , about a crime committed or planned for by him or her ” . Where criminal proceedings have already been instituted , such a statement must be made before formal charges are brought against the person .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

From GPE to DATE the applicant had a relationship with PERSON In DATE PERSON started a relationship with PERSON In DATE PERSON and PERSON moved into a joint household . In DATE and DATE the applicant had intimate contact with PERSON In DATE PERSON informed the applicant that she was pregnant .

On DATE Mr M. , with the consent of PERSON , acknowledged paternity of PERSON future child . On DATE PERSON gave birth to a daughter , PERSON and PERSON jointly exercise parental authority and are bringing up the child together .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action to challenge Mr M. ’s paternity , submitting a statutory declaration that he had had sexual intercourse with the child ’s mother during the period of conception . Mr M. submitted in reply that he lived with the child in a social - familial relationship and that he assumed full parental responsibility for the child , even if he was not her biological father .

On DATE the GPE - Kreuzberg District Court ( ORG ) scheduled a hearing for DATE . On DATE ORG cancelled the hearing , as a guardian ad litem to represent the child ’s interests had to be appointed . On DATE ORG appointed a guardian ad litem . On DATE the guardian submitted that a loving father - child relationship existed between Mr M. and NORP and that the applicant ’s action ran counter to the child ’s best interests .

On DATE , following a reminder by the applicant ’s counsel , ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE . On DATE ORG , following PERSON ’s request , postponed the hearing to DATE .

On DATE ORG , having heard the applicant , Mr M. and PERSON , ordered an expert opinion on the question whether PERSON was the child ’s biological father . On DATE ORG requested the expert to submit information on the state of the proceedings .

On DATE the expert informed ORG that PERSON and PERSON had postponed several appointments for the taking of blood samples on medical grounds . Mr PERSON had his blood sample taken on DATE . On DATE the expert informed the court that he had received the blood samples of PERSON and the child . On DATE the expert submitted his report which concluded that Mr M. was not the child ’s biological father .

On DATE , following a reminder by the applicant ’s counsel , ORG scheduled a further hearing for DATE . On DATE ORG ordered an expert opinion by the same medical expert as to the applicant ’s alleged paternity .

On DATE the expert submitted his report which concluded that it had been proved to a probability of PERCENT that the applicant was the child ’s biological father .

On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment establishing that Mr M. was not the child ’s father and that the applicant was the child ’s father . ORG found the applicant ’s action admissible , as he had submitted a statutory declaration that he had had sexual intercourse with the child ’s mother during the period of conception . The action was well - founded , as it had been proved by expert opinion that the applicant was the child ’s biological father . ORG considered that the applicant had not been precluded from challenging paternity under LAW ( see relevant domestic law below ) , as there had been no social and family relationship between Mr M. and the child at the time of the last court hearing . It could not be assumed that Mr M. bore actual responsibility for the child . This would have required the legal father and the child to have lived together for a longer period of time , which , according to ORG , necessitated a minimum period of DATE . Taking into account the constitutional right of the biological father under LAW of LAW , it was necessary that the factual relationship between the legal father and the child enjoyed a certain stability . This stability could only be assumed after DATE , which had not passed in the instant case . Under these circumstances , it was not relevant that the applicant actually took care of the child together with the child ’s mother .

On DATE ORG ( GPE ) quashed ORG judgment and rejected the applicant ’s action . The court noted that it was undisputed between the parties that Mr M. had lived with the child and her mother since the child ’s birth and that he had continued to live with them after it had been established by an expert that he was not the child ’s biological father .

According to ORG , ORG had failed to recognise that the applicant did not have the right to challenge paternity because of the existence of a social and family relationship between Mr M. and the child . ORG considered that such a relationship had not only existed at the time it decided on the appeal , but already a long time before , as Mr M. had lived together with the child and her mother in a joint household since the child ’s birth . A young child could not possibly live together with another person for a period of time longer than his or her own lifetime . The legislature had not strictly defined which period of time would amount to a “ longer period of time ” , but had left this assessment to the courts adjudicating each individual case .

The period of time which was necessary to establish a social and family relationship was not absolute , but had to be assessed with regard to the circumstances of each individual case and , in particular , the child ’s age . There was no doubt that a child , during DATE of his or her life , developed a social and family relationship with the persons taking care of him or her on a DATE basis . During DATE of his or her life , a child was in particular need of secure family relationships , which allowed him or her to develop further social contacts . A child ’s interest in learning about its true descent could only become relevant at a more advanced age . According to the intentions of the legislature , who were guided by ORG case - law , external disturbances should be avoided in the child ’s best interests and in the interest of the already existing family relationship . The constitutional rights of the biological father should not prevail over the equally protected rights of the legal father , if and as long as the latter assumed parental responsibility within the meaning of social parentage . Against this background , even a period of DATE which elapsed between a child ’s birth and the bringing of an action to challenge paternity could be considered as a “ longer period ” within this specific context .

ORG did not find it necessary to decide whether the period of time which had elapsed between the child ’s birth and the lodging of the applicant ’s action would have been sufficient to establish a social and family relationship . According to the case - law of ORG , in cases in which the child had lived since birth without interruption together with his or her legal parents , the existence of a social - family relationship had to be assumed if the cohabitation persisted and the judge was convinced that the legal father assumed actual parental responsibility in a way which appeared to be long - lasting . It was not decisive whether the social and family relationship already existed when the action was lodged , but only whether there was a social and family relationship at the time of the last court hearing . The applicant had failed to point to any circumstances which could call into question the existence of such a relationship in the instant case . Conversely , the fact that the relationship between the legal parents had endured the crisis which had been caused by the mother ’s breach of trust indicated that the relationship was particularly stable . ORG did not allow an appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint for adjudication . This decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

Under LAW , everyone is equal before the law ( § CARDINAL ) ; men and women have equal rights ( § CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Marriage and the family shall enjoy the special protection of the ORG .

( CARDINAL ) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them . The ORG shall watch over them in the performance of this duty . ”

According to LAW , a child ’s father is either the man who on the date of the child ’s birth was married to the child ’s mother ( no . CARDINAL ) , or the man who acknowledged paternity ( no . CARDINAL ) , or whose paternity is judicially established under LAW ( no . CARDINAL ) . An acknowledgement of paternity is not valid as long as the paternity of another man exists ( LAW ) . Paternity can only be validly acknowledged with the mother ’s consent ( LAW ) .

Paternity may be challenged within a time - limit of DATE . The period commences on the date on which the entitled person learns of the circumstances that militate against the established paternity ; the existence of a social and family relationship does not prevent the period from running ( LAW ) . Under LAW , entitlement to challenge paternity lies with the man whose paternity exists LAW nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , with the mother and with the child , and also with the man who makes a statutory declaration that he had sexual intercourse with the child ’s mother during the period of conception . However , pursuant to LAW , the biological father has a right to challenge the paternity of the man who is the child ’s legal father under LAW . CARDINAL or CARDINAL only if there is no social and family relationship between the legal father and the child . A social and family relationship is considered to exist if the legal father has or had actual responsibility for the child at the relevant point in time . There is , as a rule , an assumption of actual responsibility if the legal father is married to the mother of the child or has lived together with the child in a domestic community for a long period of time ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW of LAW as in force since DATE , the legal father , the mother and the child can request the examination of paternity by genetic testing . The outcome of these proceedings does not change the legal status of the persons involved . However , no such right is granted to a third person alleging that he is the biological father .

Research undertaken by ORG in respect of PERCENT ORG GPE shows that in CARDINAL of those GPE acknowledgment of the paternity of a child born out of wedlock requires the mother ’s consent . In GPE ( namely GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) , the presumed biological father is entitled to challenge the legal paternity of a third party established by acknowledgment . This right may be subject to certain time - limits . In GPE this remains the position where the legal father has lived with the child in a social and family relationship . In GPE and GPE , the biological father may not challenge paternity if the child has lived in a social and family relationship with the legally acknowledged father for a period of CARDINAL or DATE , respectively ( la possession d’état conforme au titre ) .

By contrast , in CARDINAL GPE ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) the biological father does not have standing to challenge the paternity of the legal father established by acknowledgement . In those CARDINAL jurisdictions , the courts are not entitled to judicially consider ( on the grounds of the best interests of the child or otherwise ) whether the biological father should be allowed to challenge paternity .


HEATHER MOOR & EDGECOMB LTD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (NO. 2)

George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano

NORP The applicant , ORG ( “ NORP ” ) , was a company based in GPE in GPE . According to information provided by the Government , the applicant was dissolved on DATE . The application was lodged on CARDINAL DATE by PERSON NORP GPE , a director of the applicant company . The applicant was advised by PERSON A. ORG and Ms. PERSON , barristers practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .

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

In DATE the applicant was contacted by a ORG pilot , NORP , who was approaching the retirement age of DATE and was seeking advice regarding his pension fund . NORP had already been advised by a financial services company linked to the ORG association against leaving his employer ’s occupational pension scheme , since this would entail “ enormous risk ” . There were several exchanges of correspondence between NORP and PERSON in DATE as well as a long meeting at the company ’s LOC . NORP indicated he was prepared to accept a “ medium ” degree of investment risk , and signed a checklist prepared by PERSON to indicate that he and his wife had been made fully aware of the risks associated with the income drawdown scheme being proposed . PERSON provided figures showing that by transferring his pension funds , NORP could obtain an appreciably higher DATE income . Also , the benefits payable in the event of NORP ’s death before DATE would be much greater . For its assumed growth projections , ORG used a central projection rate of PERCENT , rather than PERCENT indicated by the regulator DATE . NORP acted on ORG ’s advice and transferred his pension fund .

By DATE , NORP had become dissatisfied with his investments and , taking new advice , transferred his funds elsewhere . In DATE he made a formal complaint to ORG that he had lost PERCENT ( £ MONEY ) of the amount originally transferred . He complained as well that the PERCENT assumed rate of growth had been presented to him as a “ worst - case scenario ” , and that ORG had taken no action in response to the concerns he had expressed at the time about stock market movements . PERSON rejected the complaint , leading NORP to file a complaint with ORG ) in DATE .

The procedure followed by the ORG was an entirely written one , with submissions from NORP and from PERSON . The latter ’s requests for an oral hearing and for the opportunity to cross - examine NORP were refused . The ORG considered this to be unnecessary in the circumstances , and observed that the complaints process was an inquisitorial one , not an adversarial one .

NORP The Ombudsman gave a provisional decision on DATE . He considered that in view of the relative security provided by NORP ’s occupational pension scheme , PERSON should have demonstrated that transfer would be clearly advantageous . He observed that responsibility for advice rested completely with the adviser and was not diminished by recommendations or warnings given by other firms . The causal link was established here since PERSON had recommended transfer and NORP had done so . Although the firm argued that there had been a respectable school of thought among financial advisers that would have agreed with their advice to NORP , the witness statement they relied on indicated the contrary . The ORG considered that to be consistent with good industry practice , the firm should have assumed a growth rate of PERCENT . There was , however , no evidence in the file that the consequences of a lower growth rate had been explained to NORP Instead , PERSON had made repeated references to higher growth rates achieved in DATE . He also took the view that PERSON had not explained the investment risk in terms that NORP would have understood properly . He concluded that the overall risks associated with the income drawdown arrangement were greater than was advisable for NORP in his circumstances , and that had this been given sufficient prominence in the firm ’s advice NORP would not have transferred his pension funds . The most suitable advice would have been to remain in his employer ’s pension scheme .

HME made detailed submissions on these findings . Its arguments were considered and dismissed in the ORG ’s final decision of CARDINAL DATE .

The firm argued first that it had received legal advice that NORP ’s

HME maintained there was no causal link between its advice and NORP ’s decision to transfer his pension fund . The ORG reiterated the position taken in the provisional decision .

Regarding R. ’s attitude to risk , the ORG held that NORP ’s pension fund , which constituted a very significant part of his overall wealth , should not have been placed at risk , there being no need to do so in the particular circumstances . The fact that NORP had signed the checklist did not make the transfer more suitable , nor did it negate PERSON ’s duty to explain very clearly the risks involved .

NORP The Ombudsman reiterated that PERSON had not acted consistently with good industry practice when it used the rate of PERCENT for its projections . While this did not necessarily make the firm ’s advice more or less suitable , it incorrectly made the option of transferring look more attractive than it would otherwise have been . Although NORP was concerned to make adequate provision for his son in the eventuality of the untimely death of himself and his wife , the ORG was not satisfied that this should have been given greater weight than the security of their retirement income . Other arrangements could have been made to ensure their son ’s welfare , such as life insurance . In light of these considerations , he concluded that the appropriate advice should have been not to transfer his pension fund . He directed PERSON to arrange for a loss assessment to be carried out . NORP accepted the decision , making it binding on PERSON . In DATE the firm paid out the statutory maximum amount ( £ MONEY ) to NORP

HME applied to ORG for judicial review of the ORG ’s decision . The application was rejected on the papers on DATE . The firm renewed its application , which was heard and dismissed by Judge PERSON on DATE . CARDINAL grounds were relied on – the ORG ’s refusal to hold a hearing , and a lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the ORG . On the first ground , the judge noted that comprehensive written evidence of the parties’ dealings had been available to the ORG . It would have been pointless to cross - examine NORP on what action he would have taken had PERSON advised against transfer , it being probable that he would not have left his employer ’s scheme . The procedure followed by the ORG had been a fair one , allowing ORG to put its case fully in writing . A hearing would not have added anything . Although the firm alleged that the ORG ’s decision contained errors , judicial review was essentially concerned with procedural fairness . Moreover , it did not appear that any facts had been plainly ignored .

On the second ground , the judge rejected PERSON ’s arguments about the supervisory role of ORG ( ORG ) in relation to the ORG , and its reference to evidence in another case in which the ORG was found by an independent assessor to have effectively solicited complaints against companies . The judge was satisfied that the ORG scheme involved an independent and impartial tribunal .

HME applied for leave to appeal . This was refused on the papers by PERSON , following which the firm renewed its application , which was dealt with orally and dismissed by PERSON on DATE . He noted that Judge PERSON had found both grounds to be without merit and agreed with that view . On the issue of an oral hearing , he stated that whether the facts were or were not as alleged by the firm was beside the point . Rather the issue was whether the refusal of a hearing before the ORG was procedurally unfair or unreasonable . He did not consider it so , or that the will of ORG had been subverted in this respect . Regarding the second ground , he found it to be without substance .

The relevant provisions of domestic law , as they stood at the material time , are set out in the ORG ’s decision in ORG v. GPE DATE . ) , no CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE .

The following provision of the ORG dispute resolution rules ( ORG ) , as formulated and numbered at the material time , is also relevant to the present case :

“ CARDINAL R The ORG must maintain a register of each money award and direction made . ”


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr NORP GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the police stopped the applicant , who was driving his car , on account of a minor traffic offence . There followed a violent dispute between the applicant and the police officers , PERSON and PERSON The applicant snatched his car documents from the former and bruised the latter with his car keys .

On DATE ORG ) issued a penal order ( PERSON ) in which it sentenced the applicant to a fine of CARDINAL NORP schillings ( ( ORG ) DATE ( EUR ) ) under section CARDINAL of LAW ( Sicherheitspolizeigesetz ) for aggressive behaviour towards a public officer ( Organ öffentlicher Aufsicht ) . It noted that the applicant had shouted and tried to snatch his driving licence from a police officer . It ordered the applicant to pay CARDINAL further fines of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR DATE ) for an offence under LAW ( Straßenverkehrsordnung ) and for having caused undue noise disturbance .

The applicant did not appeal against that decision .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , sitting with a single judge , convicted the applicant of having attempted to resist the exercise of official authority ( MONEY die ORG ) , under LAW of LAW ) , and of having caused bodily harm to police officer PERSON while she was on duty , which was to be qualified as grievous bodily harm ( schwere GPE ) in accordance with LAW . Pursuant to LAW , which provides that a person who has committed CARDINAL offence should receive only a single penalty , it sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended on probation , under LAW . In the operative part ( PERSON ) of its judgment , the court referred to the fact that on DATE the applicant had started fighting with police officer PERSON , in the process bruising her with his car keys , causing skin abrasions on her forearm and kicking her legs .

In the part of the judgment headed “ Reasons for the decision ” ( Entscheidungsgründe ) , the court observed that the applicant had started to shout and , on being ordered to hand over the keys to the car , had snatched the car documents from police officer PERSON had then started the fight with police officer PERSON

The court based its findings as far as the course of the events was concerned on the statements of the police officers concerned . In respect of the injury inflicted by the applicant , it relied on the statement by the officer concerned and an official medical expert opinion .

The applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence . He argued , inter alia , that ORG had based its penal order against him on the same set of facts . The subsequent court proceedings and his conviction were therefore in breach of the non bis in idem principle . He also requested the preparation of a further expert opinion in order to prove that the police officer concerned had not suffered any injuries which were relevant for the purposes of LAW .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) , having held a hearing , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . Giving extensive reasons and referring to the ORG ’s case - law in GPE v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ) , it found that there had been no breach of the applicant ’s rights under LAW . It noted in this regard that ORG had sentenced the applicant for his aggressive conduct in seeking to impede the performance of an official act by snatching the driving licence from police officer PERSON and shouting , whereas the subject of the criminal proceedings had been the violent behaviour by which the applicant had subsequently tried to resist police officer PERSON and had injured her . ORG noted that these were different acts motivated by different intentions . In any event , the applicant ’s criminal conviction by ORG did not do justice to all of the unlawful aspects ( GPE ) of his conduct .

ORG lastly noted that in the light of the evidence before it , namely the official medical opinion , there was no need for a further medical opinion . There was no reason to doubt the police ORG version of the events , and the assessment of the facts did not require special knowledge .

The judgment was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Sicherheitspolizeigesetz ) , a person who , notwithstanding a previous warning , behaves aggressively towards a public officer on duty and thereby obstructs the performance of an official act commits an administrative offence and is punishable by a fine of up to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) ( aggressives PERSON gegenüber PERSON ) .

Section CARDINAL of LAW provides that an administrative offence under sections DATE is not to be prosecuted when it is based on facts that constitute an offence falling within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts .

Under LAW ) , it is an offence , punishable by imprisonment of DATE , to resist forcibly or using dangerous threats a public officer in the performance of an official act ( Widerstand gegen die PERSON ) .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code applies where a person causes bodily harm and provides for DATE imprisonment or CARDINAL DATE - fines .

By LAW , bodily harm caused to a public officer while on duty qualifies as grievous bodily harm ( schwere GPE ) punishable by up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

LAW provides that where a person has committed CARDINAL offence , he or she should be punished by a single penalty , on the basis of whichever offence provides for the more severe punishment .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The applicant informed the ORG that on DATE he had changed his surname to “ PERSON ” and he submitted an official document to that effect . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was suspected of having committed aggravated burglary and fraud as a result of which a third person ’s property had been disposed of to the detriment of its owner .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody .

On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be detained . The court based its detention order on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences , the severity of the likely penalty , the risk of the applicant ’s “ avoiding the administration of justice ” and his relapse into crime .

Subsequent decisions extending the applicant ’s pre - trial detention were taken by ORG on DATE , DATE , DATE , an unknown subsequent date , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and on an unknown subsequent date .

The court referred to the need to conduct further investigations , the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences , the risk of the applicant ’s obstructing the proper course of the proceedings ( especially , in view of the fact that he had previously gone into hiding ) .

The applicant appealed against the decisions extending his detention on several occasions . All of his appeals were dismissed .

On many occasions the applicant requested that his detention pending trial be lifted . On each occasion his requests were dismissed . The decisions to that effect were given by ORG ( a decision of DATE ) and ORG ( decisions of DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) . These decisions relied on the fact that the reasons for which the applicant had been initially detained were still valid . Neither the applicant ’s family situation nor his state of health had been found as such to justify lifting his pre - trial detention .

The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against some of the decisions dismissing his requests for release .

On DATE a bill of indictment was lodged with ORG . The applicant was charged with aggravated burglary and fraud as a result of which a third party ’s property had been disposed of to the detriment of its owner .

Hearings were held on : DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

From DATE to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL October CARDINAL the applicant was serving prison sentences in respect of his other convictions . Therefore , for DATE and DATE of the period of his pre - trial detention , which lasted DATE and DATE , the applicant was serving his prison sentences .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of the offences he had been charged with and sentenced him to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . As the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal , the judgment became final .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its prolongation , release from detention and rules governing other , so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the ORG ’s judgments in cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .