CASE OF HILDA HAFSTEINSDOTTIR v. ICELAND

Violation of Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

Her complaints under the Convention stem from her arrest and detention in police custody in PERSON on CARDINAL occasions as described below .

The applicant was arrested and held on remand in police custody on QUANTITY occasions on different dates DATE and DATE . Each time , she spent TIME in a cell and was released in TIME . Further details about these events are given in the police reports compiled by the responsible police officers for the Reykjavík Police Commissioner and are set out below .

( i ) In TIME DATE at TIME , the applicant went to a local police station in a PERSON suburb accompanied by CARDINAL taxi drivers . Although she only had ORG CARDINAL in her possession , the taxi fare amounted to ISK CARDINAL . According to a police report ( signed by Police Officer PERSON ) , the taxi drivers had stated that “ they had been driving [ the applicant ] during TIME , but since she had refused to pay they had driven her to the nearest police station . ” The police report further stated that she was “ obviously drunk and agitated ” and that she was “ very agitated , foul - mouthed and disruptive . ” The applicant was then transferred to ORG where she was , on the decision of ORG , detained in custody until TIME .

A further police report of DATE ( signed by PERSON ) relating to a police interrogation TIME at TIME stated that the reasons for her “ being summoned [ had ] been explained to her ” , namely a “ case ... concerning taxi fraud , intoxication , etc . ” She had replied inter alia that she had intended to pay her fare to the driver in an amount of ISK CARDINAL when returning home , but had refused to pay an invoice of ISK CARDINAL , which she would only pay after consultation with her lawyer . She expressed surprise over the fact that not only had she been subjected to a string of accusations by the police but also she had been held in detention without being given any reasons . She was released at TIME

( ii ) On DATE at TIME , the applicant arrived at the PERSON police headquarters at GPE . A police report ( signed by ORG ) entitled “ Intoxication and detention ” , described the applicant 's condition as “ Very obviously drunk ” and gave “ Drunken behaviour ” as the reason for her arrest . The report included the following passage :

“ As far as she could make herself understood she had arrived by taxi and there was some dispute between her and the driver . The driver and the taxi were nowhere to be seen .

[ After the police inspector had ] talked with PERSON for a while it became clear that the cause of the dispute no longer existed . She suddenly began to stride about in the corridors and the personnel lounge of the police station , confronting the police personnel present and exhibiting drunken behaviour . She would not calm down despite repeated requests and finally it became necessary to restrain her by placing her in police custody . ”

According to the Government , the police had repeatedly requested the applicant to desist and to leave the police station but , as these requests were ignored , she was placed in police custody as a last resort . Since the relevant hand - written card file was no longer available , the time of her release could not be confirmed .

( iii ) On DATE at TIME , the applicant went again to the PERSON police headquarters . A police report ( signed by Police Officer PERSON and addressed to the Police Commissioner ) entitled “ Intoxication , arrest and detention in police custody ” was drawn up on her arrival :

“ PERSON arrived at the police guardroom in a state of heavy intoxication . It was not clear what she wanted ; to a large extent she was incoherent . She was abusive and threatened to assault the police officers present at the station .

Police Officers nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL brought her to the detention facility ... where Inspector PERSON interviewed her .

PERSON was given the opportunity to leave freely , which she flatly refused . When her overcoat was being removed from the cell , she lashed out at her surroundings with a leather belt without , however , hurting anybody ... ”

The report described the applicant 's condition as “ very obviously drunk ” and indicated “ intoxication and aggressive behaviour ” as the reasons for her arrest , which decision was taken by Inspector PERSON

According to an entry in a more recent computerised police custody record , her detention lasted from TIME until TIME DATE . The reason for her detention was recorded as : “ Alcoholic Beverages Act , drunkenness in a public place ( section DATE [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] ) ” .

( iv ) On DATE at TIME , the applicant went to the same police station . The relevant police report ( signed by Police Officer PERSON ) , entitled “ Intoxication , improper behaviour , and detention in police custody ” , stated that her visit did not seem have any purpose and that she was very obviously drunk . Before she could be stopped , she had burst into the office of the inspector in charge and addressed him in derogatory terms as a “ son of a bitch ” and a “ eunuch ” . She was then arrested and held in police custody . The reason for her arrest according to the police report was that she had directed a stream of verbal abuse at the inspector . The decision had been taken by Inspector PERSON

The relevant custody record indicated that the applicant had been held in detention from TIME until TIME . The reason for her detention was registered as : “ policemen ; violent behaviour towards policemen ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ” . The reference in brackets appears to be Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

A police note dated DATE suggests that the applicant was offered , but refused , a judicial settlement of the matter .

( v ) On DATE at TIME the applicant once again went to the police headquarters in PERSON . The police report concerning the incident ( signed by Police Officer PERSON ) , stated that she was very obviously intoxicated and agitated and that she made a habit of visiting the police station when under the influence of alcohol . Moreover , she had made a lot of noise , including calling out the names of various police officers . Her noises and screams increased to the point of disturbing the peace required for the work of the station . The applicant grabbed a waste bin standing at the entrance to the police station and prepared herself to throw PERSON who was helping a man to wash blood off his face . The applicant slammed the bin onto the floor with a loud bang when the policeman raised his hand in order to protect himself . The applicant had been ordered many times to leave the station , but to no avail . Instead , without permission , she had entered a corridor at the station and reached the personnel lounge , while carrying a glass containing a liquor mixture . According to PERSON , she had threatened Assistant Inspector GPE and had become very agitated when kindly requested to stop screaming and to leave the station .

When she refused to leave she was arrested and brought to the detention facility . The decision was taken by Inspector PERSON The police report stated the reason for her arrest as “ state of intoxication etc . ” According to the relevant custody record she was detained from TIME until TIME . The reason for her detention was recorded as “ Alcoholic Beverages Act , drunkenness in a public place ( section DATE ) . ”

( vi ) On DATE at TIME , the police was called to FAC in PERSON . According to the relevant police report ( signed by Police Officer PERSON ) , when the police arrived the applicant had been restrained by the hotel staff . She was very obviously intoxicated and agitated . The applicant was arrested and taken into custody for “ intoxication ” . The decision was taken by Assistant Inspector GPE According to the relevant custody record ( dated DATE ) the applicant was detained from TIME until TIME . The reason for her detention was registered as “ Alcoholic Beverages Act , drunkenness in a public place ( section DATE ) . ”

The Government further submitted various pieces of evidence described below .

It included QUANTITY police reports of CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively , concerning refusals by the applicant to pay taxi fares . Another report , dated DATE , stated that she had been ordered to leave a police station while in an intoxicated state but had left the station after having damaged a toilet and insulted a police officer with offensive language . TIME she had for no apparent reason disturbed the police by repeatedly telephoning the police assistance and emergency number .

On DATE Chief Inspector PERSON complained to ORG that the applicant had sent him gifts and harassed him repeatedly with phone calls both at work and at home . Once she had gone to his home and harassed his pregnant daughter . On DATE the Prosecutor General replied that following an investigation by ORG , further measures by the prosecution service were not deemed justified .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant and the PERSON Police Commissioner that no further measures would be taken with respect to the above complaint of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE counsel for the applicant , PERSON , requested the Prosecutor General to order ORG to investigate the applicant 's complaints against various police officers , notably in relation to events on DATE and DATE . Such an investigation had previously been refused by ORG on DATE . On DATE the Prosecutor General replied that the authority saw no reason to order an investigation . On DATE a similar reply was given in relation to another complaint by the applicant concerning events on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant petitioned ORG asking for a statement of the reasons for the refusal of her requests for an investigation . On DATE the ORG concluded :

" It is clear from the case file that you and the police differ considerably as to the manner in which the police officers dealt with you on the said dates and the events preceding these incidents . I do not find that a resolution of a dispute of this kind is within the purview of ORG and , consequently , conclude that there are no grounds for me to consider the matter raised in your petition any further . "

By a letter to the applicant dated DATE , the PERSON police informed her that no further action would be taken regarding the matter , referring to CARDINAL reports related to the incidents mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ORG claiming compensation for the damage which she had suffered as a result of having been unlawfully arrested and detained by the police as well as for harassment .

After a first set of proceedings ORG ordered ORG in PERSON to re - examine the case with an oral hearing .

By a judgment of DATE ORG found that the applicant 's claim was time - barred pursuant to the DATE time limit laid down in LAW .

On an appeal by the applicant ORG overturned ORG finding by judgment of DATE . After an examination of the merits it nevertheless found for the ORG , giving the following reasons :

“ ... The judgment under appeal refers to CARDINAL events which occurred during the period from DATE to [ DATE ] . According to the police reports , on each occasion the [ applicant ] was arrested and detained on remand because she was intoxicated and agitated and could not be calmed down . The police reports relate how she acted disruptively at the police station , being verbally abusive or behaving in a drunken manner , and that she was placed in a detention cell in order to restrain her . From these descriptions , which have not been refuted , it is clear that the police had good cause and sufficient reason to commit the applicant to a detention cell for a short period of time , cf . the main rule in LAW , no . DATE then in force , and ORG and CARDINAL of LAW , no . PERSON ; and the respondent 's view that no other remedy was available in the circumstances must be upheld . Consequently , the [ applicant 's ] claim for compensation lacks legal basis and , for that reason alone , the respondent must be released from her claim . ... ”

The applicant submitted a medical certificate dated DATE , which included the following :

“ ... For DATE I , the undersigned , have acted as the [ applicant 's ] general practitioner . During this period , nothing has occurred which would indicate that she has had alcohol related problems . Nor do the reports from her previous doctors give any reason to believe that she has had such problems . ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , as in force at the material time ( CARDINAL ) , read :

“ Police officers shall be vigilant in their work and be clearly aware of the responsibility it entails . Their role is to uphold the law and order , to assist the public , as appropriate , to take measures against unlawful conduct and to work towards detecting criminal offences that are committed and to provide every assistance to official investigators . .... ”

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( no . PERSON ) provided :

Article CARDINAL

“ ' Public place ' in this GPE means streets and places intended for use by the public . The provisions on public places apply also , if appropriate , to other places open to the public - stores , restaurants , parking places , bus shelters , museums , etc . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Breaches of the peace , fights , disorderly conduct or other behaviour that disturb the peace in public places shall be prohibited , and the public shall not assemble in groups in public places if doing so interferes with traffic or causes inconvenience to passers - by .

In public places , no one may harass others or indulge in unseemly behaviour . ”

The above provisions had a statutory basis in LAW CARDINAL of DATE , section CARDINAL of which stipulated :

“ A police ordinance shall contain provisions on such matters as may be required in the circumstances obtaining in each place :

( a ) On order and good behaviour on the streets , roads and places to which the public has access , on all measures that are necessary in order to facilitate or prevent obstruction to traffic , on all matters that may cause danger , on the preservation and protection of public property , on public order in restaurants and places of entertainment accessible to the general public or public gatherings such as tournaments . ... ”

Section CARDINAL provided that a breach of police ordinances adopted under LAW was punishable by a fine .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains the following provisions regarding arrest :

“ The police shall make an arrest if ordered by a judge . The police may also make arrests without a judicial warrant :

NORP if they observe a person committing a punishable act , provided the act is subject to public indictment ;

NORP if a person is suspected of having committed an offence and does not provide police with information as to his name and address , or if he is a vagrant ;

NORP if the arrest of a suspected person is deemed necessary for the protection of others ;

NORP if an arrest is deemed necessary for preventing a suspected person from destroying evidence , leaving the police district or otherwise obstructing an investigation and it is not thought advisable to wait for a judicial warrant ;

NORP if a person has escaped from custody or evaded lawfully ordered supervision ;

NORP if a person has , unless he was prevented from so doing , failed to act upon a police summons to provide a statement in a criminal case , or

NORP if a person loses control in a public place or causes public outrage , or does not have permission to remain in GPE .

In each case a police officer shall assess the need for immediate arrest , for example on account of the danger of concealment of evidence , escape of an offender , continuation of criminal conduct , etc . ”

At the relevant time , LAW DATE ( later replaced by Act CARDINAL ) included in its Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL provisions to the effect that any person causing disorder , danger or disgrace in a public place in breach of the LAW or a regulation issued under it was punishable by payment of “ fines , punitive custody or imprisonment for DATE ” .

Assault and threatening behaviour committed against a public servant in the performance of his or her official duties constituted a criminal offence under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW .

The Government submitted extracts from CARDINAL instructions applicable to the case : ( CARDINAL ) Announcement by the PERSON Police Commissioner No . PERSON on Rules for Police Officers and Wardens Concerning Treatment of Arrested Persons , Accommodation of Detainees , etc ( hereinafter referred to as “ the CARDINAL Rules ” ) ; ( CARDINAL ) General Rules of the PERSON Police Commissioner of DATE on ORG and the Treatment of Arrested Persons ( hereinafter referred to as the “ DATE Rules ” ) , and ( CARDINAL ) General instructions of the PERSON Police Commissioner on LAW , an excerpt from an information booklet for police personnel , issued on DATE .

The DATE Rules provided that in carrying out an arrest no more force should be applied than necessary ( Article CARDINAL ) . An arrested person who was in a state of unconsciousness or similar condition should be taken to hospital ( DATE ) . A police officer who had carried out an arrest had to draw up a detailed report which should indicate the state of intoxication and the reasons for arrest ( LAW . The DATE Rules further contained provisions on notification of relatives under DATE and , if appropriate , the households of persons arrested for being intoxicated ( DATE ) . An arrested person under the age of DATE should in principle not be detained in a closed cell but should be kept in an open room under the care of the police until brought home or fetched by a relative ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL provided :

“ The inspector shall decide whether an intoxicated person who has been arrested shall be detained or whether any other measures shall be taken . ”

LAW read :

“ The inspector shall decide when a person shall be released from detention . If a person has been detained for some reason other than intoxication , he shall not be released except with the approval of a judge or the investigating officer in charge of his case . ”

The DATE Rules further contained provisions ( Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) relating to such matters as hygiene and safety , limitations on the number of persons per cell , the frequency of cell patrols ( at intervals not exceeding CARDINAL minutes ) .

Provisions largely similar to those described above were included in the CARDINAL Rules , which replaced the CARDINAL Rules on DATE . For instance , under LAW , LAW , decisions on detention should be taken by or under the supervision of a police inspector , and the inspector was to decide when a person detained on account of intoxication was to be released . Unlike the CARDINAL Rules , however , the CARDINAL Rules stated in LAW A the criteria on which the police should base its decision to place a person in detention :

A.CARDINAL .

That the condition of the person in question is such as to be a danger to himself or to others , or that another dangerous situation may arise if he is allowed to remain free , or if the person may cause damage to property . Also if a person , as a result of the use of alcohol or other intoxicating substances , causes public outrage or disorder or significant disturbance or inconvenience , provided the situation is highly likely to persist if he remains free .

The DATE Rules also specified in what circumstances detention would not be justified :

A.CARDINAL .

In cases involving intoxication only , when measures other than detention can be taken , for example taking a person home .

According to the Government , when a person was committed to a detention cell on the basis of Section A.CARDINAL , the police would decide on the time of release by assessing when the condition warranting detention had ceased . Generally in police practice that meant that detention would last for the relatively short period it took for the inebriating effects of alcohol to wear off , or for a person in a highly agitated state of mind to calm down , thereby reducing the likelihood of a continuation of the conduct that gave rise to the measure .

The Government added that the police were chiefly involved with intoxicated persons TIME and at DATE , for example due to drinking lasting DATE . It was common in such cases for the intoxicated person , after having fallen asleep in the cell , to be released in TIME when the immediate effects of his or her drinking had worn off .

The General Instructions on Arrest of DATE set out , inter alia , the duty of discretion and diligence to be observed by the police as well as the obligation to use no more force than necessary in making an arrest .

Compensation from the ORG for unlawful detention was available under LAW , subject to the time - limits set out in LAW

Article CARDINAL

“ By way of judgment , an award of compensation may be made with respect to arrest , personal search , a medical examination or any other measure involving interference with liberty , other than detention on remand and imprisonment under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL , as well as with respect to house search and seizure :

NORP if the conditions provided for by law for the taking of such measures were not fulfilled ;

NORP if the circumstances did not provide a sufficient reason for taking the measures in question , or if they were taken in an unnecessarily dangerous , harmful or offensive manner . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The right to compensation shall lapse on DATE after the date on which the person concerned became aware of a decision to discontinue the investigation or not to prosecute , was acquitted , or was released from punitive custody or imprisonment . If a criminal case has been subject to appeal to ORG , the period shall be counted from the date of ORG judgment . ”

According to the Government , there were no instances of any compensation proceedings having been brought by a person on account of his or her having been detained on grounds of being drunk and disorderly in a public place .

With effect from DATE a new LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) replaced LAW . By virtue of LAW , subparagraph ( e ) , the police could arrest a person who lost control in a public place , or caused public outrage or a danger of public disturbance .

Subsequently , the provisions on arrests in the interests of public peace and order ( i.e. arrests that did not directly relate to a criminal investigation ) were removed from LAW and incorporated in LAW ( No . CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE . The new provisions reproduced former LAW and codified some of the rules previously found in customary police powers and police instructions , notably the limited powers conferred on the police ( by a so - called general mandate ) to take such measures as are necessary to maintain law and order and the rule of proportionality applying to the use of force . Sections CARDINAL contain the following provisions :

Section CARDINAL - Use of force

Persons who exercise police powers may use force in the course of their duties . At no time , however , may they use force to any greater extent than necessary on each given occasion .

Section CARDINAL

Measures taken in the interests of public peace and quiet , public order , etc .

NORP The police may intervene in the conduct of citizens in order to maintain public peace and quiet and public order or to prevent an imminent disturbance in order to protect the safety of individuals or the public or to avert or put a stop to criminal offences .

NORP For this purpose , the police may , among other things , take over the control of traffic , prohibit persons from remaining in particular places ( e.g. by cordoning the areas off or restricting movement through them ) , seize dangerous items , order people to move away , or remove them , order an end or a change to actions or an activity , enter privately - owned areas and order the removal of persons from such places .

NORP If a person disobeys police instructions under paragraph CARDINAL , the police may take the necessary measures at the person 's expense to prevent his disobedience causing damage or injury or constituting a hazard to the public .

NORP The police may require any person to give his name , ID number and address , and to present an identification document to substantiate the information given .

NORP The police may concern themselves with matters which by law come under other authorities if it is considered necessary to stop or prevent a serious disturbance of public peace and quiet and public order and it is not possible to contact the relevant authority or it is impossible for it to take measures , or if such measures are ineffective or it is foreseeable that they would be taken too late . The appropriate authority shall be informed of the police 's actions as soon as possible .

Section CARDINAL - Power to make arrests

A person exercising police powers may arrest a person and take him to a police station or other place where the police have facilities :

a. for the purpose of maintaining law and order , for example if the person loses control or causes public outrage in a public place or a danger of public disturbance ,

b. if he does not hold a permit to remain in the country .

NORP The police shall explain to the person the reason why he is being taken to the police facility . No person may be held for longer than is necessary .


Violation of Art. 2 with regard to the failure to protect the right to life;Violation of Art. 2 with regard to the lack of an effective investigation;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

Luzius Wildhaber;Nicolas Bratza;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the police tried to stop the applicant , who had driven through a red traffic light in the centre of GPE , near the NORP embassy . Instead of stopping , the applicant accelerated . He was chased by several police officers in cars and on motorcycles . During the pursuit , the applicant ’s car collided with several other vehicles . CARDINAL drivers were injured . After the applicant had broken through QUANTITY police roadblocks , the police officers started firing at his car . The applicant alleged that the police were firing at the car ’s cab , whereas the Government maintained that they were aiming at the tyres .

Eventually , the applicant stopped at a petrol station , but did not get out . The police officers continued firing . The applicant alleged that the policemen knelt down and fired at him , whereas the ORG maintained that they were firing in the air , in particular because there were petrol pumps in danger of exploding . CARDINAL of the police officers threw a pot at the windscreen . Finally , the applicant was arrested by a police officer who managed to break into the car . The applicant claimed that he was shot on the sole of his foot while being dragged out of his car . The Government contested that claim , referring to the findings of the domestic court ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was immediately driven to hospital , where he remained for DATE . He was injured on the right arm , the right foot , the left buttock and the right side of the chest . CARDINAL bullet was removed from his foot and another one is still inside his buttock . The applicant ’s mental health , which had broken down in the past , has deteriorated considerably since the incident .

Following the incident , an administrative investigation was carried out by the police . CARDINAL of the police officers who had taken part in the chase were identified . There were also other policemen who had participated in the incident of their own accord and who had left the scene without identifying themselves and without handing in their weapons . In total , CARDINAL sworn witness statements were taken . Laboratory tests were conducted in order to examine QUANTITY police firearms , CARDINAL bullets and QUANTITY metal fragments . The applicant ’s car was also examined .

On DATE the police laboratory issued a report which contained the following findings :

“ ... The car that has been examined is severely damaged due to collisions / crashes , but also to bullets ... At the front , there is damage to the car ’s windscreen , where there are CARDINAL holes and a mark ... Bullets , directed from the inside of the car outwards , caused the CARDINAL holes as well as the mark . From the general damage to the car ( the rear window is broken and has collapsed ) , the location of the examined damage and the course ( direction ) of the bullets that caused it , it may be assumed that the bullets in question broke through the rear window and ended up hitting the windscreen , producing the holes and the mark .

... The rear window is broken and has collapsed . Because of its total destruction , it is not possible to determine exactly why it broke . From the rest of the findings ( the damage to the windscreen , etc . ) it may be assumed that bullets were responsible ... The trajectory of the bullets that caused the holes is from the rear of the car towards the front ... The shape and size of the holes suggest that the bullets were fired by a CARDINAL mm calibre firearm .

... On the driver ’s side of the car , there is a mark on the rear wing , near the wheel ; its dimensions are approximately CARDINAL x CARDINAL PERSON . From the shape of the mark it may be assumed that the bullet that caused it came from the rear of the car towards the front , with an upward trajectory . On the right - hand side of the car , the window of the front passenger ’s door is broken .

There is a bump on the roof of the car , and a corresponding hole in the upholstery inside . This has been caused by a bullet that travelled upwards from the rear of the car towards the front . It may be assumed that the bullet entered the car through the rear window ... ”

“ In total , CARDINAL revolvers , CARDINAL pistols , CARDINAL submachine guns and CARDINAL bullets were sent to us ... CARDINAL of the weapons are revolvers of CARDINAL Magnum calibre ; CARDINAL are pistols , CARDINAL of which are of CARDINAL PERSON calibre and CARDINAL of CARDINAL ACP calibre ; and CARDINAL are ORG MP CARDINAL submachine guns of CARDINAL PERSON calibre . The serial numbers of the weapons , their make and the names of the police officers to whom they belong are indicated in the above - mentioned document as well as in the delivery and confiscation reports of CARDINAL and DATE of the NORP GPE police station , copies of which are attached to this report . We performed the same number of trial shots with the CARDINAL weapons , using CARDINAL cartridges in each case . All the weapons functioned properly . The spent cartridges and bullets for each weapon were put into plastic envelopes for identification purposes , and each envelope was marked with the distinctive characteristics of the weapon .

... CARDINAL of the CARDINAL bullets were found in the car and the third was surgically removed from the first metatarsal of the injured driver ’s right foot . For identification purposes , the bullets were marked ‘ PBCARDINAL/CARDINAL’ ( for the bullet from the injured person ’s body ) and ‘ PBCARDINAL and ORG for the bullets found in the car ) . They will be regarded as evidence ... The heads and cylindrical surfaces of all CARDINAL bullets are more or less deformed as a result of hitting hard surfaces , and have broken sabots and parts missing . The average diameter of the bullet bases is QUANTITY . From the measurements and their characteristics it is surmised that the bullets come from CARDINAL PERSON cartridges ( CARDINAL x CARDINAL ) . These kinds of cartridges are fired mainly by pistols and submachine guns of the same calibre ... ”

“ ... CARDINAL holes were found on the car , caused by the direct impact of the same number of bullets . It is assumed that the bullets that caused the holes were fired by CARDINAL mm calibre weapons . Inside the car , there are holes due to secondary impact and ricochets from some of the above bullets .

... The exhibit bullet ‘ PBCARDINAL’ and the bullets the metal sabots ‘ PPCARDINAL’ and ‘ LOC come from were fired by the ORG MP CARDINAL submachine gun no . CCARDINAL .

... The exhibit the metal sabot ‘ PPCARDINAL’ comes from was fired by the FAC pistol no . LOC .

... The exhibit bullet ‘ GPE that was removed from the injured driver ’s body and the bullet ‘ PBCARDINAL’ that was found in the car have a PERSON ( CARDINAL x CARDINAL ) calibre and were fired by the same weapon of the same calibre . Despite being deformed , the CARDINAL bullets exhibit sufficient and reliable traces from the inner part of the weapon barrel from which they were fired ; comparison of these traces has led to the conclusion that they are identical . Comparative tests of the traces on these CARDINAL bullets and those on the sample bullets fired with the examined QUANTITY calibre weapons ( see above ) have not disclosed any similarities , which leads to the conclusion that the bullets in question were not fired by any of these weapons ... ”

Following the administrative investigation , the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against CARDINAL police officers ( PERSON PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON GPE and Mr PERSON ) for causing serious bodily harm ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) and CARDINAL of LAW ) and unauthorised use of weapons ( section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE ) . At a later stage , the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party claiming a specific amount by way of damages .

The trial of the QUANTITY police officers took place on DATE before the Athens First - Instance Criminal Court . The applicant ’s statement was taken down as follows :

“ I was on FAC . I turned right at the traffic lights , and saw CARDINAL police officers in front of me on FAC . I was driving at a high speed and I could n’t stop immediately . I moved a little to the left , and they immediately started firing at me . I was afraid , I thought they wanted to kill me , so I accelerated and drove off . They chased me and fired constantly . I moved into the oncoming lane and hit some cars . I was very scared . I had recently been in hospital for depression . I stopped at a petrol station and , while I was taking off my seat belt , I opened the door a little and they injured my arm and chest . They pulled me out of the car ; a police officer injured me again , on the leg , and put handcuffs on me . I heard banging noises on the car , but I do n’t know what they were . There were gunshots coming from everywhere , also from above . I do n’t know exactly who injured me . I did n’t have a weapon . I never carry a weapon . They took me to ORG . A chief officer of police came and brought me a document to sign , but I did n’t sign it because I did n’t know what they had written in it . This happened at the same place where they took QUANTITY of blood from me . They removed the bullet from my leg without anaesthetic . It was very painful ; I do n’t know why they did this . I had internal bleeding and the doctors said it was from my teeth . My father obtained a paper from the public prosecutor so that he could take me from ORG to the ORG ( centre for rehabilitation following injury ) . A bullet has remained in my lung and the other bullet has caused an internal wound below my waist . The first gunshot was on FAC . Perhaps they were looking for something ; perhaps they thought I was someone else . I drove towards PERSON . They fired at me during the entire chase . When they pulled me out of the car , they made me lie on the ground , shot at me and then put handcuffs on me . It was then that they shot me in the foot . After the incident I suffered from psychological shock and was admitted to ORG . I am still receiving medical attention from [ another hospital ] and I take medication . Before the incident I worked as a plasterer . Since then I have n’t been able to work . I have never in my life held a gun , apart from when I was in the army , where I served normally . There was no roadblock on FAC . I saw QUANTITY police officers . CARDINAL of them waved at me to stop and the other pointed his weapon at me . I was frightened because of the weapon and I did n’t stop immediately . After some time they started firing at me . I do n’t remember whether I noticed a police car or not near FAC . When I reached ORG , they had their sirens on and they were following me and firing at me . I moved into the oncoming lane . I wanted to get home quickly . In FAC there was a police roadblock . I did n’t take any notice of it . On FAC there was another roadblock . I did n’t take any notice of that one either . Further down , at some traffic lights , I wove my way through the traffic in order to get away . I remember colliding sideways with someone , not head on . I do n’t remember causing a car to turn over . I do n’t remember a seeing a roadblock on FAC . I do n’t remember if they were shooting at me there . I stopped at the petrol station because I had already been hit by a bullet and I was in pain . Besides , there were a lot people there and I was n’t so scared . I stopped and tried to unbuckle my seat belt . Right then , I felt bullets in my back . The windows were broken . A police officer came , pulled me out and , while I was lying on my side , face down , they shot me in the foot . I do n’t know which CARDINAL of them shot me . I did n’t see who shot me because I was lying face down . Before the incident I had been in hospital once only , for minor depression . After the incident I developed persecution mania . Before the incident I had only had minor depression . When I was at the petrol station I did not make any movements that could make the police officers think I was carrying a weapon . ”

The GPE statements were taken down as follows :

“ I was in police car no . ORG . We were in the NORP GPE area . We heard about the chase on the radio . We arranged with the control centre to create traffic congestion at the beginning of the road close to GPE . We positioned the police car sideways across the road , facing the sea . I also stopped some civilian cars in order to block the road . Suddenly I saw flashing lights , sirens and a car at a distance of QUANTITY coming towards me . The driver moved to the right of the street that leads to the marina and drove past me at a distance of QUANTITY ; I even jumped out of the way so that he would n’t run me over . Motorcycles and police cars drove past , following at a distance of QUANTITY . There were no gunshots fired by anyone there . We got in the car and followed the other police cars at a distance of QUANTITY . I remember seeing a red car that had skidded on to the barrier . We lost control briefly , then continued driving . I heard gunshots after seeing the car that was turned upside down on FAC . I used my weapon later . We followed the fugitive ’s course . When we reached FAC , we heard gunshots again . We went towards the petrol station . I got out of the car , there was chaos everywhere , and I heard gunshots . Some colleagues had ducked , others were on the ground , others were taking cover . I did n’t know where the gunshots were coming from . They could also have been coming from the ORG [ the applicant ’s car ] . I saw some of my colleagues firing in the air . Then I fired two shots in the air and threw myself to the ground . I was QUANTITY away from the car . I did n’t get close to fire the shots , because there was a block of flats nearby . I heard the shouts of the colleagues who were telling the driver to get out of the car . Finally , I saw the police officers who were at the front walking freely and I realised the incident was over . I believe that the weapons of the colleagues who were summoned , or who had notified the control centre , were checked . From where I was standing , I could n’t see the victim in the car . ”

“ Since TIME , we had been on duty at the B department of ORG . We heard on the radio that a chase was in progress , starting from the NORP embassy , of a car which had almost run over QUANTITY pedestrians and a traffic warden . We followed the car . Near GPE we saw that the police had formed a roadblock . PERSON was using his whistle to stop the cars . The ORG drove over to the right , to the side street , and then suddenly turned left . PERSON jumped out of the way instinctively , and the ORG passed very near him . At Rodeo there was a roadblock similar to the one where PERSON was . The victim hit a red car and caused it to turn upside down . The radio of the first police car informed us of the course the ORG was taking . As we approached the junction of Posidonos and PERSON and we were QUANTITY behind , I heard the first gunshots . We continued driving and entered FAC . There were some police cars ahead of us . Among them , there may have been some that had not been called but had come on their own initiative . When we arrived , I got out of the police car and went towards the vehicle that was being chased . Other colleagues kept calling to the driver to get out of the car . He did n’t get out . I heard someone say , ‘ Let ’s fire some shots to intimidate him’ , and I took my weapon out and shot twice in the air . CARDINAL of my colleagues took advantage of a break in the shooting to pull the driver out of the car . I was QUANTITY away from the ORG , or CARDINAL ; I do n’t remember exactly . The control centre issued a warning that the man was carrying a weapon . I have been in many chases , and this particular individual gave me the impression that he was familiar with this kind of thing . ”

“ I ride a motorcycle . On FAC we heard on the radio that a chase was in progress from the NORP embassy . Very soon afterwards we heard that the driver had reached ORG . I tried to get on to the central reservation to take up my position and wait for him . I saw the car coming . Risking my life , I got down from the high pavement and followed it . A police car and CARDINAL motorcycles were in pursuit . I heard on the radio that the individual was dangerous and possibly carrying a weapon ; he was driving very dangerously . At the traffic lights on FAC , close to ORG , as we reached the marina of Amfithea and Posidonos , I was struck by his ability to weave in and out of the other cars . I had never seen a chase like this one , although I had spent DATE in the service . At the junction of PERSON and FAC , he collided with a taxi . At the traffic lights at that junction there was a police roadblock . PERSON turned right and entered the side street . He was driving into the oncoming traffic and , having gone past the traffic lights , he turned left and created confusion , because the lights changed and the cars were moving off . I did n’t know whether anyone had been killed , or what was happening . I was still in the right side street . The ORG had been blocked by the other cars , and I shot CARDINAL times in the air to intimidate him . It was impossible to aim at the ORG because it was between other cars . GPE drove off , continued down FAC , drove uphill and , as I was approaching at a distance of QUANTITY , I saw the car at the petrol station . I got off my motorcycle and entered the petrol station from the right . I went into the workshop and shouted ‘ Everyone move out of the way!’ . I climbed up a staircase and on to the veranda . While I was climbing up the stairs , I heard gunshots . I did n’t know where they were coming from . When I got up there I heard the others calling to the driver to get out of the car . I saw him leaning over to the side and opening the glove compartment , and I assumed that he was going to take out a weapon and shoot . I shouted at the others to be careful because he might have a weapon . I picked up a big pot and threw it at the car . I was watching the driver ’s hands , so as to be able to shout and warn my colleagues if I saw him taking something out to throw . ”

“ PERSON and I set off together . At TIME I was standing in front of the police car . I saw the ORG coming from ORG , going through a red light and almost hitting a couple . I waved to the driver to stop . He drove straight towards me and almost hit me . I jumped aside . No one took out their weapons . I got in the car and we chased him , not only for contravening traffic regulations , but also because he had almost hit me . At FAC we crossed into the oncoming lane and turned right at a red light . We had the flashing lights on and we were driving very fast , but we could n’t locate him . Suddenly , we saw the ORG in front of FAC . We turned on the flashing lights and the siren , and we flashed our lights at him . He saw us from his car , braked and turned on his hazard lights , and suddenly he drove off again at high speed , sounding his horn . He reached PERSON , crossed into the oncoming lane near the flower shops and drove into FAC against the traffic . We turned the flashing lights on again and followed him . We continued driving and notified the control centre . On FAC he almost collided with another police car . At the traffic lights at FAC he went through a red light , crossed into the oncoming lane , hit a car and continued driving . CARDINAL motorcycles came close to him . At GPE , a police car , CARDINAL motorcycles and CARDINAL civilian cars had formed a roadblock . He drove towards the right , mounted the pavement and went past them . At PERSON he caused a ORG to turn upside down . We thought that whoever was in it must be dead . The control centre told the officers on motorcycles to follow him from a distance because of the danger . At Amfithea he collided with a taxi driver , causing him a neck injury ; he later had to wear a collar . He continued down FAC and FAC . He entered the side street and drove against the traffic . He drove past the other cars and crossed over to PERSON . That was where the first gunshots were fired . I leaned out of the left window at the back and shot at the back left tyre of the ORG . The tyre burst . I was certain about the direction of the bullet . I knew that no one was in danger . When a bullet hits a tyre , it does not ricochet . I fired from a distance of QUANTITY . After firing , I saw that the tyre had been punctured . PERSON fired at the right tyre at the back . With his tyres burst , PERSON stopped at the petrol station . We were almost level with him . I acted as a traffic controller . I stopped the oncoming cars , and once the arrest had been made I saw how many police cars there were . There were CARDINAL . When all the police cars were at the petrol station , shots were fired in the air , not at the car . The car had been hit at the junction . There were a lot of policemen . They occupied both lanes of the street . The ORG had to slow down , and they fired at him . I was stopping the cars . If they had aimed at the car when we were at the petrol station , they would have shot me too . I believe all the gunshots , even the ones that hit the windows , were aimed at the tyres . ”

“ I was at the NORP embassy with GPE . We saw a ORG going through a red light . The traffic warden waved to him to stop . The ORG continued driving towards our colleague , at the risk of hitting him . We got in our car and followed him . He crossed into the oncoming lane and went through a red light at FAC . We lost him and then we suddenly saw him at FAC . We followed him , turned on the flashing lights and waved to him to stop . At the flower shops he turned on his hazard lights as if he were going to stop . Suddenly , he increased his speed and crossed into the oncoming lane on FAC and continued towards PERSON and PERSON . We followed him . Other police cars arrived . At GPE he bypassed a roadblock by driving around the side . At PERSON he caused a ORG to turn upside down and continued on his way . Further down the road there was a roadblock . He collided with a taxi driver and continued on . At the junction of PERSON and NORP Streets there was another roadblock . He turned right into a side street and then turned left , crossing FAC . I heard some gunshots there . We drove to the top of the side street , followed him and , when we reached FAC , we were QUANTITY away from him . I took my weapon out and aimed at his right rear tyre . When you fire shot after shot it is difficult to aim . I put my weapon on to automatic , which makes it fire CARDINAL times . The ORG stopped QUANTITY away , at the petrol station , and we followed . The entire course and his behaviour had seemed extremely dangerous to us , like that of a terrorist . Other police cars and motorcycles arrived . They called to him to get out of the car . He did n’t , and some gunshots were fired . We were QUANTITY behind him . If they did fire from the other police cars directly at him , we were n’t in their line of fire . I heard some colleagues say , ‘ Let ’s fire some gunshots to intimidate him’ . Someone got up on the veranda and threw a pot down . CARDINAL of my colleagues , who was wearing a bullet - proof vest , and whom I did not know , along with someone else , got close , broke the window and called to him to get out . He did n’t , so they pulled him out . CARDINAL of them attempted to put handcuffs on him . Someone shouted ‘ Careful , he is ORG and they did n’t put them on . The ambulance came . I did n’t know whether he had been injured by a bullet or in a car accident . Neither my weapon nor Souliotis ’s fires ORG bullets . The PERSON is very powerful and has a great force of penetration . I do n’t know who said that he was armed and that we should fire in the air . ”

“ PERSON and I were on duty as instructed at ORG . We received a message to go to PERSON , where a car which had hit other cars and had n’t stopped when signalled to by a traffic warden , etc . , was being chased . We went to PERSON and followed the driver . At GPE he drove through a red light and continued towards the coastal avenue . At GPE we saw a lot of police cars and flashing lights . We remained behind him and , at PERSON , we saw the car that had been turned upside down . We were left a bit behind . At the junction of Posidonos and PERSON we lost him completely . We asked a civilian , who told us that he had turned right and was heading towards FAC , and we headed that way . I heard some gunshots that I thought were coming from the junction of PERSON and FAC . Artificial traffic congestion had been created . The control centre issued a warning that the man was armed and dangerous . We stopped QUANTITY to the right of the petrol station and heard gunshots . We did n’t know whether they were coming from the victim or the police officers because we could n’t see the car . We took cover and heard him being called out of the car . We fired some intimidation shots in order to confuse him , because we knew that a police officer would try to arrest him . ”

“ PERSON was my chief of crew . We received a message and chased the car , getting close to it at the traffic lights at FAC . At GPE we were falling behind . The driver went through the roadblock that had been set up . At PERSON we saw the car that had been turned upside down . There was a problem with the traffic and we were left behind . At the junction of PERSON and FAC a taxi had been damaged . Further down we heard gunshots . Some civilians told us that the driver had turned left . We followed him . When we got to the petrol station we heard gunshots . Some colleagues were heard shouting , ‘ Get out’ , ‘ Be careful’ , and someone else said , ‘ GPE to intimidate him’ . So I fired two shots to intimidate him . I have served for DATE . I have never seen anything like this . During the chase we heard from the control centre that the individual was extremely dangerous and possibly armed . ”

The ORG statements were taken down as follows :

“ I am the driver who chased the victim . PERSON , PERSON and I serve in ORG . The victim ’s car was considered suspicious . We consider suspicious anything that moves around the NORP embassy . One of my colleagues , who was not carrying a gun , signalled the driver to stop . My other colleague and I waited at a distance , outside the car . Instead of stopping , the driver continued towards my colleague and almost hit him . Then he drove off . We considered him dangerous , and had to chase after him . At first we lost him for a while , but then we spotted him again near FAC . We waved to him to stop . He hesitated for a while , looked as if he was about to stop , but then drove on . At this point we started chasing him with the sirens on . He reached ORG , crossed into the oncoming lane and continued towards PERSON at full speed . We had notified other police cars that were going to PERSON . At some stage he almost collided with a police car . When he reached the coastal avenue , we had already formed a roadblock . He collided with some civilian cars , got away , and drove on . Further down , at PERSON , he collided with a red car and caused it to turn over , and then drove off at full speed . There was traffic in the area . There was a lot of traffic in PERSON and he moved on to the hard shoulder . It was in that area , in PERSON , that we heard gunshots for the first time . Until then we had n’t fired because there was a lot of traffic and we could have injured civilians . We did n’t lose him at any point ; we only almost lost him at the beginning of PERSON , where there was an obstacle on the pavement . Mr PERSON and Mr Souliotis were in the car with me and it was around that area that our colleagues fired at the tyres of the car . I maintain that , with our training , we can hit the target in PERCENT of cases , if not PERCENT . The driver stopped at the petrol station . We moved the civilians out of the way and some other colleagues who were wearing bullet - proof vests approached his car , broke the windows and pulled him out of the car , because they had called to him to get out several times but he had n’t . Gunshots were heard from a distance . I do n’t know where they were coming from . A colleague had gone up on to the veranda , but I do n’t think he fired . He threw a pot at the driver . When the gunshots were fired , the victim ’s car was parked sideways on the right of the petrol station . We were at the left of the petrol station and the others were behind me . I do n’t know if others fired at the car . We heard gunshots at the beginning of PERSON , and at the end , when everything was over . The final shots were probably fired to intimidate the victim . [ Officer ] PERSON was the one that pulled him out . I do n’t think he fired at him . There was no reason to do so . The victim made some movements in the car : he moved right and then left , as if looking for something , and it was conceivable that he had a weapon . That is why colleagues wearing bullet - proof vests went to pull him out of the car . I do n’t know about the ballistic investigation . The bullets found inside the car were from the weapons of PERSON and PERSON . However , my colleagues were aiming at the tyres . The speed of the chase was QUANTITY in PERSON and PERSON , because there was traffic . We were QUANTITY behind him . Near the columns [ of FAC ] motorcycles appeared both ahead of us and behind . At the beginning of PERSON another police car came up in front of the victim and he almost collided with it . He was moving from left to right in PERSON , racing at QUANTITY and changing lanes constantly . I ca n’t say which police cars were behind us at the corner of PERSON , because when we chase someone we do n’t see what is going on behind . We stopped at the petrol station ; CARDINAL motorcycles stopped behind us , and another car stopped behind them . The first gunshots were fired at the junction of GPE and PERSON . In FAC , before FAC , when we were QUANTITY behind him , PERSON used his firearm and shot at the tyres of the car . Mr PERSON must have used his weapon too at the same spot . When the driver reached the petrol station and stopped , I called from the car to the civilians to move out of the way and to the driver to get out , and a colleague who was wearing a bullet - proof vest went to pull him out . I do n’t know how many bullets were fired ; the front windscreen broke because a pot was thrown at it . I do not know how the front passenger ’s window broke , or how the back window broke . I do n’t know how the victim ’s foot was injured . It could n’t have been when shots were fired around the car . Finally , we went to the police station to make a statement . Our lives were n’t directly at risk during the incident . The driver had caused accidents , driven into the oncoming traffic and endangered many people . In total , he had been chased by CARDINAL policemen , whose weapons were confiscated , but others had also got involved . We had never seen anything like it . They told us on the radio to be careful , that the individual was carrying a weapon and might be extremely dangerous . PERSON is a traffic warden . Of course he was not carrying a weapon when he waved to him to stop . The police roadblocks were set up because they had been ordered by the control centre . We also created artificial traffic congestion with civilian cars at the traffic lights . During the incident we noticed that civilians were injured , that cars were turned upside down ; we did n’t have any other way of stopping him , after the roadblocks and the artificial traffic congestion . The last roadblock was on FAC . There were police officers on foot in the side street . He drove straight at them . That was the moment when the first gunshots were fired . That was also the moment when my colleagues first fired from the car at his tyres . It is possible that other weapons were used besides the CARDINAL that were confiscated . For that matter , the bullet that was taken from his leg did not belong to any of the QUANTITY weapons that were confiscated . If someone had fired in the victim ’s direction at the petrol station , the petrol would have caught fire . At the petrol station they fired shots in the air . Probably in order to cover the colleague that went to pull him out . CARDINAL of my colleagues climbed up on to the veranda and threw a pot at him to create confusion . PERSON pulled him out and handcuffed him . We saw that he was bleeding and they took him to hospital . The investigation was carried out by our officers and some other department , not by those of us who had gone to the police station . ”

“ I was on the old coastal avenue in PERSON . I saw a vehicle driving erratically . We got an order from the control centre and went after it . On the way we saw all the accidents , the cars that had been hit and someone who was injured . We reached PERSON from PERSON . We were far behind . We did n’t hear any gunshots . Even if there had been gunshots , we would not have heard them . Mr PERSON , who was with me , had a bullet - proof vest . He put it on , while another colleague broke the window . Mr PERSON pulled the driver out and put handcuffs on him , but when he saw that he had been injured he removed them . The victim was looking right and left ; his hands were on the floor , we could not see them , and we assumed he had a gun . When we reached the petrol station , I heard CARDINAL or CARDINAL gunshots ; I do n’t know where they came from . PERSON and PERSON were with me in the police car . NORP and I did n’t have bullet - proof vests and we did n’t move closer , as PERSON did . There were a lot of police cars and motorcycles . There is no way any weapons could have been concealed or changed hands . Our weapons are given to each of us personally . We do not give them to other colleagues . At the petrol station , when we moved closer so that PERSON could pull the driver out of the car , nobody fired . No colleague could have become involved in the incident without receiving an order , unless someone heard about it and came on his own initiative . If such a person had used his weapon , there is no way he would have left without handing it over . ”

“ I was the driver of the last police car , where Mr PERSON was . We received an order from the centre and we followed the chase . We were the last to get to the petrol station where the ORG was parked . There were a lot of police cars and motorcycles . Everybody was out of their cars ; the ORG was right next to the pump that is on the right - hand side when facing the petrol station . Everyone was out of their cars ... Mr PERSON put on his bullet - proof vest and I covered him from the back , while behind me there were more officers covering him . When we got there , we heard some gunshots . When we got out of the car and were standing very close to the ORG CARDINAL or CARDINAL gunshots were fired ; they were not fired in my direction , because we were very close to the ORG ... Perhaps the car was hit in the process , I do n’t know . I am not in a position to know at which stage the victim was hit ; probably during the chase ... ”

“ ... The shots fired at the petrol station were for intimidation . I did n’t see any shots fired at the car , the shots were fired towards the car but in the air , that is , the bullets went up in the air . I do n’t know the [ police officers ] who fired . I had never seen them before . I know GPE and PERSON . The police officer who climbed up on to the veranda did n’t shoot ; he threw a pot . We are bound by our duty and have to follow orders when it comes to the areas we are patrolling , but we do n’t always follow them and often go on our own initiative to the scene of incidents like this one where colleagues are in danger and all manner of things have happened in the past . The entire operation at the petrol station lasted TIME ; the ORG had stopped along the kerb at the petrol station . I parked on the right , I arrived almost at the same time as the men in the first police car , and the rest got there immediately afterwards , one after the other . All the men were holding weapons in their hands . Usually all police cars have a light machine gun . After I got there I took cover behind a column . We called to the driver to get out of the car , and then the shooting began . I do n’t remember even approximately how long afterwards the shooting began . The victim made some movements in the car . The movements he made while he was unlocking the car and all his other movements could have been seen by us as movements to get his weapon out from a holster under his arm , or to take out a hand grenade . At the junction of PERSON and NORP Streets I did n’t notice any shots being fired at the right - hand side of the Skoda , only the ones fired at the tyres on the left - hand side . The first photograph shows that the tyres on the left - hand side are burst , the second CARDINAL shows that the ones on the right are burst . As to the injury to [ the applicant ’s ] right foot , it is possible that a bullet that was fired at the tyres ricocheted and penetrated through the metal plate of the car , which is QUANTITY thick . There are bullets that can pierce metal plates of double thickness . In those cars there is no chassis . There are only plain metal plates , which can be pierced by a ricocheting bullet : the victim may have been hit in the buttock in this way . He may have been hit in the armpit area in the same way . At some point I saw him leaning towards the seat ; I thought he might have been hit and I shouted . ”

“ I am the petrol station attendant . I was in front of the pump , filling up . Suddenly , I saw the ORG slowly coming up and stopping next to me , with the front facing the street as you can see in the photograph . The driver was not moving . Then the police cars arrived ; the policemen were shouting , ‘ Move out of the way , move out of the way!’ . I left the pump and went inside , CARDINAL to QUANTITY away , and the owner and I moved to an area further at the back . There is a second door , and we went through to the workshop . When I went inside the store I heard gunshots . There was chaos . More gunshots were fired . They were firing , but I do n’t know in which direction . I could n’t see anything . The pumps were next to the store ; if they had fired towards the car the bullets would also have hit the pumps . I think someone went up on to the veranda and threw a pot down . I saw it because I had gone out the back but I did n’t go close . I could n’t see anything and I did n’t witness the arrest or see whether they shot him . When the car arrived I saw the tyres were burst , but I do not remember whether the windows were also broken . In the first photograph , I think the tyres are burst . It was the first statement I had ever made , I was still in a state of panic and I do n’t know whether I reported everything accurately . It ’s the same DATE having passed since the incident . When I went to the back , I saw the police officer . He did n’t shoot , he threw a pot , but I could n’t see the victim ’s car . Neither the ORG , which was QUANTITY away , next to the car , nor the pumps , of course , had any bullet holes . The end of the veranda where the police officer went overlooked the car . The front of the car must have been protruding a bit under the veranda . ”

“ I am the owner of the petrol station . I was standing a bit further inside than ORG . I saw the ORG coming up slowly . It stopped , and seconds later I heard gunshots . The boy heard the shouting , I did n’t . When I heard the gunshots I left , I went up to the house , and then a police officer came and threw a large pot at the roof of the car . He did n’t shoot . I came down when the shooting had stopped and I saw the victim as they were pulling him out of the car . I think the man who pulled him out was wearing civilian clothes . I am not sure . I saw him holding a big machine gun . I do n’t know if he fired . I do n’t remember . If he had fired , I would remember it . He may have fired ; but I did n’t see him do it . I do n’t remember whether the windows of the car were broken . I remember that he had crashed ... I did n’t find any cartridge cases anywhere . I did n’t find any bullet holes anywhere . When I saw the police officer who came from the back on to the veranda , I left and did n’t see if he fired . I went downstairs and saw them pulling the driver out of the car . The police officer did n’t shoot him . It may also have been the person that got off the motorcycle . The veranda is wide and it covered CARDINAL of the car . ”

“ I was at the junction of Posidonos and PERSON ... Suddenly , I saw in my rear - view mirror a car coming from the side street at great speed ; it drove over the curb , came from the right and crashed into me . It threw me a distance of QUANTITY . There was a police car next to me . The police officers must have been out of the car , and were holding weapons . I heard gunshots and I was frightened . More police cars came and followed the ORG to the left , towards FAC . He caused great damage to me . If someone had been sitting in the back seat , they would not have survived . ”

Having deliberated , the court acquitted the QUANTITY police officers on both the criminal charges brought against them ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) . On the first count ( causing serious bodily harm ) , the court found that it had not been established that the accused were the ones who had injured the applicant . A number of police officers who had taken part in the incident had left the scene after the applicant ’s arrest without revealing their identity or giving the necessary information concerning their weapons . The bullet that was removed from the body of the victim and a bullet that was found inside the car were fired from the same weapon but were unrelated to the traces from the CARDINAL weapons that were examined . The other bullet and some of the metal fragments found in the applicant ’s car had been fired from the weapons of CARDINAL of the accused . However , it had not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that these officers had injured the applicant , given that many other shots had been fired from unidentified weapons .

As regards the second charge ( unauthorised use of weapons ) , the court held that the police officers had used their weapons for no other purpose than trying to stop a car whose driver they reasonably considered to be a dangerous criminal .

The relevant passages of the court ’s judgment read as follows :

“ On DATE the victim , PERSON , was driving a private vehicle with the number plate YIM DATE in GPE in the area around the NORP embassy . At the junction of ORG and GPE , a unit of the special police control division of ORG was carrying out checks on passing cars . The accused PERSON , PERSON and ORG were part of this unit . The victim ’s vehicle was coming from the direction of the hospital ; he drove through a red light and the accused Souliotis signalled to him to stop . Instead of stopping at the signal made by the traffic warden , however , he continued driving towards him and almost hit him . The police crew got into their car immediately and began chasing him . At FAC he entered the oncoming lane and drove through a red light . Because of the traffic , the police officers lost the car , which they were chasing with their flashing lights on , and met with it again near FAC . They flashed their lights at the driver in order for him to stop ; the siren and the flashing lights of the police car were on . Initially the victim turned his hazard lights on , as if he were going to stop the car . However , he suddenly accelerated and drove off . He reached PERSON near the flower shops ; he entered the oncoming lane at FAC and continued towards FAC . The police car informed the ORG control centre , and the control centre notified other units that were on duty in the area in which the victim was moving , in order for them to come and assist . At FAC the car was moving at a very high speed from CARDINAL lane to the other . Near Kallirois Street the driver almost collided with a police car ; at the traffic lights at FAC he drove through a red light , entered the oncoming lane and collided with a car . At GPE there was a roadblock formed by a police car , CARDINAL motorcycles and CARDINAL civilian cars , which he got past by driving on the pavement , and the crew of the police car were almost run over . At PERSON he collided with a ORG that was stationary , caused it to turn upside down , injuring the driver , and on FAC he collided with a car and a taxi , whose driver was injured . At the junction of GPE and PERSON there was a police car in the side street , and the cars moving towards PERSON had been blocked . The victim drove over the central reservation towards the right , in order to head towards the side street , but then he noticed the police car and drove over the central reservation towards the left and collided with CARDINAL cars that were crossing FAC and almost ran over Police Constable Stroumpoulis . The first gunshots directed at the pursued car , which were fired in order to stop the victim , were heard at the junction of GPE and PERSON . It was in that area that the accused PERSON , who was riding in the police car and had been chasing the vehicle from the beginning , fired a burst of shots when the car was at a distance of QUANTITY , with his firearm no . MP CARDINAL CCARDINAL , because the car was moving . He aimed at the rear right tyre . The accused Souliotis , who was riding in the same police car , fired from the left window , with his pistol no . AO CARDINAL , aiming at the rear left tyre , which he punctured . Near that junction the victim had to slow down . Many police officers had reached that spot and occupied both lanes ; other police officers , besides those already mentioned , also fired at the car , as many gunshots were fired at that spot . It is also to be noted that , during the entire course , policemen , police cars and motorcycles joined the chase , without being able to stop the vehicle . It continued its course along FAC , despite the gunshots , and stopped at the junction of PERSON and PERSON , at the entrance of a petrol station and near the petrol pumps , with the front facing the street . There , he was surrounded by the police units that were chasing him , and which the control centre knew had taken part in the operation , and also by other units that had come on their own initiative to help their colleagues when they heard about the incident from the control centre . In other words , there were units in the area that had gone to the scene of the incident , without being called . The police officers got out of their cars and off their motorcycles , holding their weapons . The victim made some movements in his car , which gave the police officers the impression that he had a weapon . The police officers asked him to get out of the car , but he did not , and the police officer who was wearing a bullet - proof vest , PERSON , approached the car . Then , a lot of the police officers who were present began firing in order to intimidate the victim and cover their colleague ; PERSON took the opportunity to break the car window and arrest the victim . Earlier , the accused police officer PERSON had climbed on to the veranda which was above the petrol station and had thrown a pot down , which broke the windscreen without making it fall in . When the victim got out of the car , he was immobilised by the police officer who had arrested him , and by his colleagues , and then it became clear that he was injured . He had an exit wound on his right arm , another exit wound on the right of the thorax , with the entry from the back of the armpit . He had an exit wound at the end of his left foot , a wound high up on his left buttock and wounds on the outer surface of the kidney area . The windscreen of the car driven by the victim was broken , but had not fallen in ; it had CARDINAL bullet holes and a mark made by another . There were CARDINAL bullet holes in the metal part of the left door at the back , and a bullet mark on the metal surface of the chassis . The back window was smashed and on its metal part there were CARDINAL bullet holes and another one at the left rear lights . There was a bullet mark on the right rear wing above the wheel . The front passenger window was broken and there was a bullet mark on the outside of the roof . There were bullet holes inside the car under the glove compartment on the dashboard , on the radio , the top part of the dashboard , in the driver ’s seat , in the front passenger seat and in the back seat . CARDINAL bullets and CARDINAL fragments were found inside the car . Of the police officers who took part in the operation , CARDINAL handed over their weapons , that is , all those who had been ordered to take part in the chase or who had notified the control centre and whose departments knew that they had taken part in the operation . However , others had taken part of their own accord in order to help their colleagues , and it is not known who they are or why they left after the arrest of the victim without informing the control centre of their presence at the scene of the incident . Among the QUANTITY weapons , there were QUANTITY revolvers of ORG calibre ; CARDINAL pistols , CARDINAL of which were of QUANTITY PERSON and CARDINAL of CARDINAL ACP calibre ; and CARDINAL ORG MP CARDINAL submachine guns of CARDINAL PERSON calibre . Of the CARDINAL weapons , only the weapons of the accused had been fired . The CARDINAL bullets that were found in the car and the one that was removed from the first metatarsal of the right foot of the driver came from cartridges of CARDINAL PERSON ( CARDINAL x CARDINAL ) calibre . Such cartridges are fired mainly from pistols and submachine guns with the same calibre . The CARDINAL fragments found inside the car are sabot fragments of coated bullets of different calibre and it was not possible to identify the calibre of the bullets , although one of the fragments was assessed as a fragment of QUANTITY ( CARDINAL x CARDINAL ) calibre . The report by the laboratory expert confirmed that the CARDINAL bullets , CARDINAL of which were found in the car and CARDINAL of which was found in the foot of the victim , came from cartridges of CARDINAL PERSON ( CARDINAL x CARDINAL ) calibre . The bullet [ PBCARDINAL ] and the CARDINAL metal sabots [ PPCARDINAL and PPCARDINAL ] found inside the car were fired by the ORG MP CARDINAL submachine gun number no . CCARDINAL that belonged to the accused PERSON . The bullet from which the other metal sabot [ PPCARDINAL ] came , which was found inside the car , was fired by the FAC pistol no . ACARDINAL that belonged to the accused Souliotis . The bullet that was removed from the body of the victim and a bullet that was found inside the car were fired by the same weapon , of PERSON ( CARDINAL x CARDINAL ) calibre , but bear no relation to the traces left by the CARDINAL weapons that were examined . The victim , PERSON , was indeed injured by the submachine guns used by the police officers who took part in the chase and which were fired during the pursuit at the junction of GPE and PERSON where , apart from ORG and PERSON [ illegible ] ( third accused ) other police officers fired who have not been identified , since there were many police officers who fired at that spot . This emerges indirectly from the fact that the bullet that was removed from the body of the victim and another one were fired by a weapon the owner of which was not identified and were not fired by the weapons of the accused . The fact that bullets and sabots that were found inside the car were fired by the weapons of the accused PERSON and PERSON leads to the conclusion that the physical injuries of the victim were caused by the weapons that belonged to the accused , apart from the one to his foot . In addition , since there were many bullet holes in his car that were caused by other , unidentified , weapons , the victim might have been injured by those bullets . As already stated , submachine guns and pistols are also of the same calibre . The first , second , third , sixth and seventh defendants fired shots for the purpose of intimidation in the area of the final operation ( the petrol station ) . It is also to be noted that many others also fired shots there for intimidation purposes in order to assist their colleagues who were closer to the car to arrest the victim . They can not have fired towards the car , because there was a danger of hitting the pumps of the petrol station , and there were no traces of gunshots in that area . The victim ’s foot injury was caused from above , since only the top of the shoe was hit and not the sole , but it can not be said that the shot was fired by the accused GPE , who had climbed on to the veranda of the petrol station , because the car was parked in such a way that CARDINAL of it was under the veranda and thus the direction of the shot would have to have been almost vertical in order to hit the top part of the foot . If that had been the case , the bullet would also have had to go through a part of the dashboard . There is no trace of this , the closest mark being on the radio . Besides , if this injury had been caused by the weapon of the accused , it would have been confirmed by the expert investigation ... The injury was indeed on the top part of the foot ; but it could have been caused by a shot that was fired from behind the car while the victim was driving and his foot was almost vertical to the accelerator , by CARDINAL of the weapons fired at him at the junction of PERSON and FAC . The victim ’s allegation that he was shot immediately after he was pulled out of the car must be considered groundless , since , as he stated , he was shot when he was ‘ lying on his side , face LOC . If that had been the case , the injury would have been different . Having regard to the above , and taking into account the fact that other police officers who have not been identified took part in the operation , some of whom possibly used their weapons , the ORG has doubts as to whether the accused caused the victim ’s injury . As a result , they should be declared innocent of the first act attributed to them . They should also be declared innocent of the second act because , although they used their weapons , they had attempted to stop the car by creating artificial traffic congestion and roadblocks and had failed , as the victim had continued driving while he was being chased by a large number of police officers , in a manner that was dangerous to the civilians that were in his way . Furthermore , the police officers did not know whether the civilians in the cars that had collided with the victim were killed , and they understandably considered him to be a dangerous criminal because of his behaviour and because they had received that information from the control centre . ORG also doubts whether the accused could have avoided using their weapons , which they did in order to stop him and intimidate him , so that he would stop driving in a manner that was dangerous to other civilians , and to protect the latter , as was their duty . Therefore , the accused must be declared innocent of the acts attributed to them in the indictment . ”

The applicant , who was present when the judgment was pronounced , did not have the right to appeal under domestic law . The text of the judgment was finalised on DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant . The indictment read as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] is accused ... of committing a number of offences and more specifically :

A. While driving [ his ] car in GPE on DATE , he caused with his vehicle bodily injury and harm to others by his negligence , that is , by failing to take the care he should and could have taken in the circumstances and to anticipate the culpable consequences of his acts . More specifically : ( a ) while he was driving the vehicle referred to above in FAC , near NORP PERSON , towards the airport , he did not keep enough distance between himself and the vehicles in front to be able to avoid a crash in case they reduced their speed or stopped , so that he crashed the front of his car into the back of the car with the private registration number IR-CARDINAL that PERSON was driving in the same direction , resulting in injuries to her neck ; ( b ) after the above crash , the accused continued driving the vehicle referred to above and , while he was going along FAC near GPE , he again failed to keep enough distance from the vehicles in front , thus crashing the front of his car into the back of the car with the taxi registration number E-CARDINAL that PERSON was driving and that had stopped at a red light in the left lane of FAC , the consequence of which was to cause injury to the aforementioned driver who suffered a cervical hernia and an injury to the head .

B. While he was driving [ his ] car at the time and place referred to above , he did not keep enough distance from the vehicles in front to avoid a crash in case they reduced their speed or stopped .

C. While he was driving [ his ] car at the time and place referred to above , he did not abide by the police ORG signal to stop and , specifically , while he was driving the vehicle referred to above in GPE , crossing FAC , FAC , FAC and FAC , he did not comply with a signal to stop made by police officer PERSON , who was using a car of the NORP Police , registration number EA-CARDINAL , in FAC , but continued driving , crossing all the streets mentioned above , while the above - mentioned police car and other police cars of the NORP Police were chasing him ... ”

By judgment no . CARDINAL , the Athens First - Instance Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ Intentional infliction of bodily harm on another person ... shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment ... ”

“ Where the act punishable under LAW has been committed in a way which could have endangered the victim ’s life or caused him grievous bodily harm , imprisonment of DATE shall be imposed . ”

Section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE provides :

“ Anyone who uses a gun ... while committing a serious crime or lesser offence of which he is subsequently convicted shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of DATE to be added to the sentence imposed for that offence . ”

At the material time , the use of firearms by law - enforcement officials was regulated by PERSON no . CARDINAL , which was enacted on DATE when GPE was under NORP occupation . LAW of that statute listed a wide range of situations in which a police officer could use firearms ( for example in order “ to enforce the laws , decrees and decisions of the relevant authorities or to disperse public gatherings or suppress mutinies ” ) , without being liable for the consequences . These provisions were modified by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which authorises the use of firearms in the situations set forth in PERSON no . CARDINAL “ only when absolutely necessary and when all less extreme methods have been exhausted ” . Law no . CARDINAL was criticised as “ defective ” and “ vague ” by ORG ( see Opinion no . CARDINAL ) . Senior NORP police officers and trade unions have called for this legislation to be updated . In a letter to the Minister of Public Order dated DATE , ORG ( ORG ) , an advisory body to the government , expressed the view that new legislation which would incorporate relevant international human rights law and guidelines was imperative ( ORG , DATE Report , pp . CARDINAL ) . In DATE the Minister of Public Order announced that a new law would shortly be enacted , which would “ safeguard citizens against the reckless use of police weapons , but also safeguard police officers who will be better informed as to when they can use them ” .

In DATE , a group called ORG DATE ” was dismantled . That group , established in DATE , had committed numerous terrorist acts , including the assassination of GPE officials in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE Law no . DATE , which is entitled “ Carrying and use of firearms by police officers , training of police officers in the use of firearms and other provisions ” , came into force . Law no . CARDINAL was repealed ( section CARDINAL) . Further , in DATE , the “ Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police ” , which was prepared by ORG , was translated into NORP with a view to being distributed to NORP policemen .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ Every human being has the inherent right to life . This right shall be protected by law . No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life . ”

In this connection , ORG of ORG noted the following ( see General PERSON no . CARDINAL , Article DATE ( DATE ) , § CARDINAL ) :

“ The protection against arbitrary deprivation of life which is explicitly required by the third sentence of LAW is of paramount importance . The ORG considers that GPE Parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts , but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces . The deprivation of life by the authorities of the ORG is a matter of the utmost gravity . Therefore , the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities . ”

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials ( “ ORG Principles ” ) were adopted on DATE by ORG on ORG and the Treatment of Offenders . Paragraph CARDINAL of the Principles provides :

“ Law - enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self - defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury , to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life , to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority , or to prevent his or her escape , and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives . In any event , intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Principles provides , inter alia , that law - enforcement officials shall “ act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved ” . Under the terms of paragraph CARDINAL , “ governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law - enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law ” . LAW ( b ) states that national rules and regulations on the use of firearms should “ ensure that firearms are used only in appropriate circumstances and in a manner likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm ” .

Other relevant provisions read as follows :

“ ... law - enforcement officials shall identify themselves as such and shall give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms , with sufficient time for the warnings to be observed , unless to do so would unduly place the law - enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons , or would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident . ”

“ ... Governments and law - enforcement agencies shall ensure that an effective review process is available and that independent administrative or prosecutorial authorities are in a position to exercise jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances . In cases of death and serious injury or other grave consequences , a detailed report shall be sent promptly to the competent authorities responsible for administrative review and judicial control . ”

“ Persons affected by the use of force and firearms or their legal representatives shall have access to an independent process , including a judicial process . In the event of the death of such persons , this provision shall apply to their dependants accordingly . ”