Datasets:

akkasi

/

ecthr_cases

like 0

7. The applicant is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Wodzisław. 8. In October 1995 a local branch of the Christian-National Association published a political leaflet entitled “Wodzisławianin”, which contained a following note, written by the applicant: “The inhabitants of Wodzisław wonder why the lists of the local election commissions [for the coming 1995 presidential election] have not been made public in the city hall, as used to be the case. We have the answer to this question: the composition of nine election committees was determined in a secret vote held by the [Wodzisław] Municipal Council, and the councillors elected themselves to hold posts [in these commissions]. Sixteen persons [who were not members of the Council] were not elected, including four representatives of the lower councils, three women [...] who are all respectable citizens. The payment for the work in the election commission is PLZ 1,500,000, which is equivalent to two thirds of [unemployment benefit], ... Inhabitants of Wodzisław! When you go to the polls, remember that the election committee No. 8 in P. will be composed of, among others, Mr [...] and Mr J. K., which means that [by receiving their payment] they would take away from you 1,5 tons of coal for this winter, while at the same time they obtain 8 to 10 per cent of the average national salary as remuneration for their work as councillors of the Municipal Council. [...]” 9. A list of other municipal councillors who would participate in the election committees followed, each name accompanied by a designation of certain goods, such as 500 loaves of bread or 200 bus tickets, worth PLZ 1,500,000 at that time, which, according to the leaflet, they would thus “take away” from the reader. 10. The note went on to say: “Remember! You could have received this money yourself. That money is to be paid from taxes you have paid. The municipal councillors, whom you elected, are poor and concerned, above all, about their own interest and that of their families. You, as a lesser member of the local society, should be thankful that your councillor has informed you about the possibility of earning additional income, that he elected himself to the local election committee, that he put his power to a legitimate use in the interest of the community, and that he thereby revealed the truth about himself”. 11. Subsequently J.K. lodged with the Jędrzejów District Court a private bill of indictment against the applicant, complaining that the leaflet was defamatory. 12. At the first hearing, held on 25 January 1996, J.K. expressed willingness to settle the case, but the applicant declined to do so. At the hearing on 26 June 1996 the plaintiff again proposed to settle the matter amicably. The applicant refused. 13. At the same hearing the court heard statements from the applicant and the plaintiff. The applicant refused to acknowledge that by publishing the impugned statements he had committed an offence. When interviewed by the court, he confirmed that he had written the contested text. 14. The court examined as witnesses requested by the prosecution a saleswoman from the kiosk where the applicant had left the leaflets to be taken by its clients and R.B., a journalist who had written an article about the way in which the public had reacted to the leaflet. 15. The applicant requested the court to admit in evidence the testimony of W.C. as to the contents of the impugned leaflet. He also asked the court to take into consideration two articles about the leaflet and the public reaction to it, one published in “Gazeta Jędrzejowska” and another one in “Słowo Ludu”, written by K.S. He also requested that K.S. be heard as a witness to prove that the leaflet had not been understood as amounting to an accusation of theft against J.K. The court allowed his requests in respect of the articles, but declined to call the witnesses requested by the applicant, considering that their evidence would relate to the contents of the leaflet which had already been included in the case file. 16. On the same day the Jędrzejów District Court convicted the applicant of disseminating untruthful information about J.K. in order to denigrate him and to lower him in the public esteem necessary for his function as a municipal councillor, i.e. the offence of libel, punishable under Article 178 § 2 of the Criminal Code of 1969. 17. The court established that J.K., a headmaster of a public school in P., had been a municipal councillor in Wodzisław for the past eight years. Until 31 December 1995 he had been the president of the Council's Board of Auditors. During the presidential election in 1995 he had been a member of the election commission in P. 18. In October 1995 the local branch of the Christian-National Association, of which the applicant was a member, had published a leaflet co-authored by the applicant. 19. The judgment further read: “In this leaflet addressed to the inhabitants of Wodzisław, the authors stated, among other things, that '[... ] and J.K. would take away from you 1, 5 tons of coal for this winter', that the councillors were 'poor and concerned, above all, about their own interest and that of their families', that they had 'elected themselves to the local elections committees', that they 'put their power to a legitimate use in the interest of the community'. The court considered the following: The plaintiff had stated that, in his opinion, the leaflet was slanderous. It implied that he intended to commit theft, that when receiving remuneration for his participation in the election committee he had been acting out of base motives and that he had been using the function of councillor for his personal enrichment. The community of Wodzisław understood the leaflet in a similar manner, as had been shown by the testimony given by R. B. The court, when assessing the statements in the leaflet, shared the opinion of the plaintiff and of the local community that it amounted to slander. The statements that the councillors had 'elected themselves to the local elections committee' and that they were 'concerned, above all, about their own interest and that of their families' related also to the plaintiff. It is not open to any doubt that the defendant distributed the leaflet; he admitted he had. Moreover, K.B. [when giving evidence] stated that the defendant had personally brought it to the editorial office of 'Słowo Ludu'. Despite the fact that only 150 copies of the leaflet had been printed, the defendant envisaged that that they would have more readers, as shown by the phrase contained therein: 'If you have read it, pass it on'. Dissemination of information of this kind was, in the court's view, degrading for the plaintiff; the accused, when publishing it, had an intention to denigrate the plaintiff; by distributing it he lowered the plaintiff in public esteem, necessary for him to carry out his work as a councillor. This demonstrates the seriousness of his offence, which must therefore be qualified as slander punishable under Article 178 § 2 of the Criminal Code”. 20. The court imposed on the applicant a fine of PLN 1,000 with three months and ten days' imprisonment in default, ordered him to pay PLN 100 to a local hospital and a further PLN 100 to J. K. and to pay the court costs to the Treasury in the amount of PLN 100. The court further ruled that the operative part of the judgment should be published in the local daily newspaper. When determining the fine, the court had regard to the fact that the applicant's financial situation was “very good. His monthly income from his shop was PLN 400-600, his wife's monthly salary was PLN 450, and he also owned a farm of 7,40 hectares”. Therefore the sentence imposed on him under Article 178 § 2 read together with Article 54 of the Criminal Code was appropriate to the applicant's situation. 21. The applicant appealed. He argued that the court had wrongly established the relevant facts in that it considered that his intention had been to insult J.K., while he had been acting out of concern for the public interest. It was further argued that the court had wrongly considered credible only the evidence called for the plaintiff, i.e. the testimony of journalist R.B., whom the court had questioned and whose opinions were unfavourable to the applicant. However, the court had refused to call as a witness on the applicant's behalf another journalist K.S., who had also published an article about the applicant's case, expressing views favourable to the applicant's stand and sharing the applicant's conclusions. The court admitted this article as evidence, but had not referred to it in its judgment, and had refused to call K.S. as a witness. 22. On 17 February 1997 the Kielce Regional Court upheld the contested judgment. 23. The court considered that the lower court had carefully assessed the evidence before it and logically explained its reasons in the written grounds of the judgment. It had not been arbitrary in the assessment of the evidence. It was not in dispute between the parties that it was the applicant who had written the impugned text in the leaflet. That text had informed the public in Wodzisław that J.K. as the local councillor had elected himself to the election commission, had taken care only of his own interests and that of his family, and had thereby abused his powers. 24. The court considered that the leaflet could undoubtedly lower J.K. in public esteem and divest him of the trust necessary for his work as a councillor. The applicant could not successfully rely on his argument that when publishing the leaflet he had been acting out of concern for a legitimate public interest. 25. It had to be taken into consideration that the offence of aggravated defamation could be committed if the perpetrator knowingly disseminated false information about the victim. Such defamation could not be justified either by good faith or by the public interest. If the perpetrator had any grounds on which he could foresee that the allegations might be untrue, but he or she still disseminated them, he thereby committed the offence of aggravated defamation, punishable under Article 178 § 2 of the Criminal Code. These elements obtained in the applicant's case as he had published his allegations about J.K., acting in bad faith. 26. The court considered that the sentence imposed was adequate, having regard both to the social danger of the offence and to the applicant's personal situation. The court also ordered the applicant to pay PLN 100 by way of court fee and to reimburse the court fee paid by the plaintiff in the amount of PLN 100. 27. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. 28. It was first argued that the first-instance court had breached provisions of procedural law in that it infringed the principle that the taking of evidence should be direct. The court had called as a witness for the plaintiff the journalist R.B. and questioned him, but refused to call another journalist K.S as a witness on the applicant's behalf. K.S. had written and published an article in which he agreed with the stand taken by the applicant in the leaflet. The opinion about the character of the leaflet and about the public response to it was entirely different in these two articles, since R.B.'s article was critical of the applicant. Likewise, the articles written by R.B. and K.S. were divergent as to their assessment of the public reaction to the leaflet. The first-instance court had failed to give any grounds in its judgment to explain why it had chosen not to call K.S. as witness. 29. Secondly, the appellant submitted that the contested judgments were in breach of substantive law. This was so because the lower courts had wrongly accepted that the applicant's acts amounted to a criminal offence of slander. The applicant's text published in the leaflet should have been regarded as legitimate criticism of public persons, the councillors of the Wodzisław Municipal Council, compatible with the applicant's freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. 30. On 20 February 2001 the Supreme Court, in a decision for which no written grounds were given, dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded and ordered the applicant to pay the court fee for the cassation proceedings.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Liptovský Mikuláš. 9. The father of the applicant owned a residential house. At some point in the late 1940s or early 1950s the house was expropriated and attributed to a State company. The applicant's father died in 1959. 10. On 23 January 1991 the applicant lodged a demand with the State company for restoration of the house to her under the Extra‑Judicial Rehabilitations Act (Law no. 87/1991 Coll.). 11. On 25 March 1992 the applicant filed a claim against the State company with the Liptovský Mikuláš District Court (Okresný súd) for the restitution of the house. In response to the District Court's request the applicant clarified and supplemented her original submission on 4 November 1992. 12. On 9 September 1993 the applicant submitted a further specification of the subject‑matter of her action. 13. On 14 September 1993 the District Court held a hearing. 14. By a submission of 23 September 1993 the applicant restated the scope of the subject‑matter of her action. 15. On 7 October 1993 the District Court held a hearing and granted the action. 16. On 3 November 1993 the judgment was sent by registered mail to both parties. The State company confirmed receipt of the judgment by signing a postal delivery card (doručenka) indicating 22 November 1993 as the date of service. 17. On 6 December 1993 the State company filed an appeal to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd). It claimed that the District Court's judgment had been served on it on 22 November 1993. 18. On 23 December 1993 the applicant filed her observations in reply to the appeal. 19. On 11 January 1994 the District Court transmitted the case‑file to the Regional Court for a determination of the appeal. On 14 March 1994 the Regional Court returned the case‑file to the District Court as the latter had failed to collect the court fee from the appellant State company. On 25 August 1994 the District Court re‑submitted the appeal to the Regional Court after having collected the court fee. 20. On 17 November 1994 the Regional Court held a hearing on the appeal, quashed the District Court's judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for re‑examination. 21. On 11 January 1995 the District Court requested the parties to submit further evidence and especially the Decree of 8 July 1950 on nationalisation of the estate of the applicant's father (the “Nationalisation Decree of 1950”). On 19 February 1995 the applicant submitted evidence and informed the District Court that she was still searching for the Nationalisation Decree of 1950 and that she would submit it as soon as it was found. 22. On 9 March 1995 the applicant informed the District Court that, according to reports of 16 February and 2 March 1995 from the Slovakian National Archive and the Liptovský Mikuláš District Library, respectively, the Nationalisation Decree of 1950 could not be found there. 23. On 14 September 1995 the applicant appointed a lawyer to represent her in the proceedings. 24. On 11 October 1995 the Ministry of Administration and Privatisation of National Property (Ministerstvo pre správu a privatizáciu národného majetku) decided under the Act on the Transfer of State Property to Private Persons (Law no. 92/1991 Coll., as amended) to privatise the subsidiary of the State company whose assets comprised the house. The State company was transformed into a private joint stock company (“the privatised company”). Its assets were transferred to the National Property Fund (Fond národného majetku – “the Fund”) and later invested in the privatised company. The Fund subsequently sold 51% of the shares of the privatised company to a third private party. 25. The hearing scheduled for 14 March 1996 had to be adjourned as none of the parties appeared, the applicant having duly apologised for her absence. 26. On 22 April 1996 the National Archive informed the applicant again that it was unable to find the Nationalisation Decree of 1950. 27. On 4 June 1996 the applicant requested that the District Court investigate when its judgment of 7 October 1993 had been served on the State company. 28. The District Court then made an inquiry with the Liptovský Mikuláš Post Office about the service of the judgment of 7 October 1993 to the State company and obtained the information that service had been effected on 4 November 1993. 29. On 2 September 1996 the applicant informed the District Court that she had withdrawn the power of attorney from her previous legal representatives. She appointed as a new representative her son who permanently resided in Toronto (Canada) but, at that time, was staying and had an address in Slovakia. The applicant identified the privatised company as the new defendant to her action and made a new submission concerning the merits of her case. Among other things, she pointed out that the District Court's judgment of 7 October 1993 had in fact already been received by the State company on 4 November 1993. She maintained that in order to satisfy the fifteen days' time‑limit for its appeal of 6 December 1993, the State company had forged the date stated in the postal delivery card to indicate 22 November 1993 as the judgment service date. She requested that that appeal be declared inadmissible as having been lodged out of time and that her action be granted. 30. The applicant made six written submissions between September 1996 and February 1997. The privatised company also made three written submissions between November 1996 and February 1997. 31. In the meantime, on 19 September 1996 and 23 January and 7 February 1997 the District Court held hearings. The hearing of 23 January had to be adjourned in order that the District Court could examine the recent submissions of the parties. 32. On 19 February 1997 the applicant informed the District Court of her witnesses. 33. On 28 February 1997 the District Court requested information from the Fund concerning the settlement of the applicant's restitution claims in the process of privatisation of the State company. The Fund replied on 6 March 1997. 34. The applicant made further written submissions on 21 March, 24 March and 9 April 1997. 35. On 10 April 1997 the District Court held a hearing and gave a new judgment in the case. It ordered the privatised company to surrender the house to the applicant. The District Court further decided that the applicant was entitled to compensation in respect of her legal costs. As to the amount of this compensation, the District Court accepted only a minor part of the applicant's claim and dismissed its remainder. 36. On 14 April 1997 the applicant submitted a further specification of her claim for compensation in respect of the costs and expenses. 37. On 27 May 1997 the privatised company lodged an appeal against the District Court's judgment of 10 April 1997 with the Žilina Regional Court. On 13 June 1997 the applicant filed her observations in reply to the company's appeal. 38. The Regional Court called a hearing for 10 February 1998 but it had to be adjourned as neither the applicant nor her representative who was at that time in Canada appeared. On 26 February 1998 the applicant requested that the Regional Court fix the next hearing for 18 March 1998 as on that day her representative would be able to attend. 39. On 17 March and 21 April 1998 the Regional Court held hearings. Following the later one, on the same day, the Regional Court gave a judgment in which it upheld the District Court's judgment as regards the merits of the case. As to the applicant's argument concerning the admissibility of the State company's appeal of 6 December 1993, the Regional Court found it established that the judgment of 7 October 1993 had in fact been served on the State company on 4 November 1993 and not on 22 November 1993. It however held that it was not competent to re‑examine the admissibility of the appeal of 6 December 1993 as this appeal had already been determined by the Banská Bystrica Regional Court in its decision of 17 November 1994. The Regional Court found the District Court's ruling in respect of the applicant's costs and expenses to be “absolutely incomprehensible”, quashed it and remitted the matter to the District Court for a new decision. The decision on the merits of the case became final and binding on 20 August 1998. 40. On 1 December 1998 the Regional Court corrected a clerical error in its judgment of 21 April 1998. 41. On 1 March 1999 a Judicial Enforcement Officer (súdny exekútor), commissioned by the applicant to enforce the District Court's judgment of 10 April 1997, as upheld by the Regional Court on 21 April 1998, notified the privatised company that enforcement proceedings had been instituted. The privatised company filed objections against this enforcement with the District Court. 42. On 19 May 1999 the District Court dismissed the company's objections and the enforcement was successfully completed. 43. On 6 April and 13 October and 14 October 1999 and 2 May 2001 the applicant made further submissions concerning her claim for reimbursement of her costs and expenses. In the meantime she was instructed by the District Court to bring her claims in line with the applicable procedural requirements. 44. In its decision of 21 May 2001 the District Court made an award for costs. As no appeal was lodged, it became final and binding.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Poreč. 5. On 7 January 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici) against the insurance company C. seeking payment on the basis of an insurance contract. 6. On 22 February 1996 the applicant’s claim was dismissed. The applicant appealed against the judgment on 20 March 1996. 7. On 18 July 1996 the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru) dismissed his appeal and upheld the first instance judgment. 8. On 7 October 1996 the applicant filed a request for revision on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request on 7 June 2001. The judgment was served on the applicant on 24 October 2001.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

12. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Lefkoşa, in the northern Cyprus, “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”). 13. The application concerns the killing of the applicant's husband, Mr Kutlu Adalı, by unknown persons. The applicant made serious allegations about the involvement of Turkish and/or “TRNC” agents in the murder. She further complained of the inadequacy of the investigation launched by the “TRNC” authorities into the death of Kutlu Adalı. She contended that her husband had received death threats on several occasions because of his articles and political opinions. The applicant further complained that following the death of her husband she had been subjected to continuing practices of harassment, intimidation and discrimination by the “TRNC” authorities. In this connection, she referred to several incidents. 14. The Government denied all allegations concerning the murder of Kutlu Adalı. They maintained that the “TRNC” authorities had immediately commenced an investigation into his death, and had conducted a thorough investigation. However, the perpetrators of the crime had not yet been identified. The Government also rejected the applicant's allegations of harassment and submitted that these submissions were of mere speculation. 15. The facts surrounding the killing of the applicant's husband and the alleged practices of harassment, intimidation and discrimination by the “TRNC” authorities are disputed between the parties. 16. The facts as submitted by the applicant are set out in Section 1 below. The facts as submitted by the Government are contained in Section 2. 17. A summary of the documents submitted by the parties is to be found in the Annex. The witness evidence taken by the Court's Delegates at hearings counducted in Strasbourg and Nicosia is summarised in Part B. 18. The applicant's husband, Mr Kutlu Adalı, was a Turkish Cypriot writer and journalist who was known for having written and published articles strongly criticising the policies and practices of the Turkish Government and the authorities of the “TRNC”. He had always claimed that Cyprus should not be divided and that Turkish and Greek Cypriots should live in a united republic based on a pluralist democratic system. 19. Apart from his writing and journalism, Mr Kutlu Adalı had also held various civil service posts in the past. Between 1961 and 1972 he was employed as the private secretary to Mr Rauf Denktaş, who later became the President of the “TRNC”. In 1972 Mr Adalı's salary was suspended because he had wished to write an article about policies of Mr Denktaş with which he disagreed. 20. At that time, Mr Denktaş wanted the applicant's husband, Kutlu Adalı, to work for a radio station called Bayrak (Flag), which was under the control of the Turkish Resistance Movement. Mr Kutlu Adalı refused to work for this radio station and was imprisoned without any charge or trial for one week because of his refusal. After his release, he started to work for the Bayrak radio station in order for his salary to be restored. 21. In 1974 Mr Adalı was appointed to the post of Head of the Identity Cards Section of the Department for the Registration of the Population. In December 1979 he was suspended, and was reinstated in 1986, when he was given the post of adviser in the Tourist Office of the “TRNC”. His career as a civil servant ended in 1987, when he was compelled to take early retirement at the age of 50. 22. During his public service and after his retirement Mr Kutlu Adalı continued his career as a writer and journalist. Initially, he wrote under a pseudonym (Kerem Atlı), because it was dangerous for him to express his political views about a unified Cyprus using his real name. In 1981 he started using his real name. For the last seven years before his death he wrote regularly for Yenidüzen, a left-wing newspaper. 23. The applicant and her husband received various threats intended to deter him from continuing to express his opinions. Between January 1980 and July 1996 unknown persons subjected the applicant's husband to various forms of harassment. His house was attacked with machine guns and he received frequent threatening phone calls. Unknown people entered his house looking for copies of his articles, in order to be able to start criminal proceedings against him, as he was writing his articles under a pseudonym. 24. On 17 March 1996 the Yenidüzen newspaper printed an article by Kutlu Adalı about an incident in which thieves had broken into a tomb in the monastery of St Barnabas and stolen various objects of cultural significance. He had written that the licence plates and the colour of the thieves' cars had been noted, and the licence plates had been traced as belonging to two members of the Civil Defence Organisation. After the publication of this article, the editor of the newspaper received a threatening phone call from the head of the Civil Defence Organisation. Mr Adalı also began to receive frequent threatening phone calls. 25. On 4 July 1996 the Yenidüzen newspaper published another article by Mr Adalı which strongly criticised the “Mother Country- Child Country” policy of the Government of Turkey and of the “TRNC”. 26. On 6 July 1996, at around 11.35 p.m., the applicant's husband was shot and killed in front of his house in the “TRNC” by unknown persons. The applicant was in Istanbul on the night when he was killed. When she had telephoned her husband at about 11.15 p.m., he had told her that “they” had been threatening him. The “TRNC” authorities refused to show the applicant her husband's body. She was told by the doctor in charge of the mortuary, Dr İsmail Bundak, that no post mortem had been carried out, although the body had been rayed. She has never been allowed to see the rays. The applicant was informed for the first time that a post mortem had been carried out in the Government's observations of 1 April 1999, and a copy of the post-mortem report was provided. 27. The applicant has attempted to investigate her husband's death herself. She found out from her neighbours that shortly before her husband's death, a black car had been parked in the street. This black car was of the same model as the car driven by Altay Sayıl, a retired police officer who had become friendly with the family in the last months of the applicant's husband's life. This retired police officer Altay Sayıl did not appear for ten days following the death of her husband. 28. The applicant's neighbours told her that around the time her husband had been shot they had heard him begging his killers for his life. They said that they had heard a man saying that the applicant's husband deserved to die. The neighbours also informed her that the electric lighting in the street outside the applicant's home had gone out at about 10.30 p.m., causing the area to be in darkness, and had not been switched on again until shortly after Mr Adalı had been shot. The applicant also learned from her neighbours that within only a few minutes of the shooting about twelve military cars had arrived and had sealed off the area, and that the “special teams” of police officers had threatened the neighbours with guns to force them to go back inside their houses. 29. On 8 July 1996 the pro-“TRNC” government newspaper Kıbrıs reported that it had received a statement from a fascist group calling itself the Turkish Revenge Brigade, claiming that it had killed Kutlu Adalı. According to the applicant, this group is linked to the so-called “Grey Wolves”, the youth movement of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party. They have close and long-standing links with members of the Turkish armed forces, the Turkish police, the Turkish National Intelligence Service (MIT), the Turkish paramilitary apparatus, Turkish ministers and the Turkish mafia. 30. Three days after her husband was killed, the applicant's family received a telephone call from an anonymous caller, a woman, who gave the names of two individuals who she said were responsible for Mr Adalı's murder, a Mr Hüseyin Demirci and a man whose first name was Orhan. The applicant informed the police about this phone call but the police refused to start an investigation, stating that this woman was known for making false allegations to the police. The applicant discovered that Mr Demirci was a member of the “Grey Wolves” and of the Civil Defence Organisation and that the security forces were paying him. Orhan was a colonel in the Turkish armed forces on the island. 31. On 14 July 1996 the applicant's children arranged a meeting with the President of the “TRNC”. They requested him to take steps to ensure that effective action was taken to find their father's killer, and the President promised to take effective action. 32. On 18 July 1996 the applicant requested President Denktaş that the status of martyr be awarded to Kutlu Adalı. On 9 September 1996 her request was rejected. 33. There have also been repeated allegations in the press that a man called Abdullah Çatlı, an extreme right-wing activist who was linked with the “Grey Wolves” and who was allegedly instructed by some Turkish officials to kill people suspected of being PKK members, was involved in the death of the applicant's husband. According to the applicant's personal information, Abdullah Çatlı had arrived in the “TRNC” at the beginning of July 1996 under a false identity. 34. She contends that in November 1996 she received an invitation from southern Cyprus to receive an award in her husband's name. However, the day before the meeting she received a phone call from an official in the “TRNC Ministry of Foreign Affairs” and, being scared by this phone call, she decided not to attend the meeting. 35. In December 1996 the applicant went to see the security forces' commander, Mr Hasan Peker Günal, and complained that the security forces were not investigating her husband's death properly. 36. On 5 March 1997 the Yenidüzen newspaper published a letter signed by the head of the “Grey Wolves”, which contained a threat that left-wing journalists and writers would be killed like the applicant's husband. The applicant gave copies of this article to the police to investigate, but she did not receive any response. 37. On 26 June 1997 the applicant wrote to the security forces' commander, Mr Hasan Peker Günal, pointing out that nearly one year had passed since her husband's assassination and that the perpetrators had not yet been found, but she did not receive any concrete information in reply. 38. Plain-clothes policemen have constantly been following the applicant and her daughter; their phones had been tapped and their correspondence monitored. They have received anonymous phone calls and their telephone and fax line has been disconnected from time to time. In this connection, she submits that she received very few letters of condolence following her husband's death. She maintains that the water supply of her house has been cut on several occasions and she does not believe that this was due to technical faults as it has been alleged by the Council Water Department. 39. The “TRNC” regime also refused to register an association, which is called “Kutlu Adalı Foundation”, whose aims include the furthering of the ideas of Kutlu Adalı regarding peace, democracy, human rights and freedom. 40. The applicant also requested permission from the authorities to keep her husband's press card that entitled her to certain privileges, such as discounts for air fares. However, this request was also rejected. 41. On 20 June 1997 the public authorities prevented the applicant and her daughter from attending a meeting organised by a radio station in southern Cyprus, by not giving them permission to cross over to that side. 42. On the anniversary of Kutlu Adalı's death the applicant organised a ceremony to commemorate her husband. On the day of the ceremony, the municipality brought in digging machines to dig up the road just under their street. The applicant also submits that a picture of Kutlu Adalı, which was displayed in their garden, was stolen. 43. On 10 August 1997 she heard three gunshots outside her home. Subsequently, before she left for England, a real-estate agent came to meet her daughter and told her to sell their house and accept any offer he would make to buy it. The applicant believes that this real-estate agent was sent by the “TRNC” authorities to persuade her to leave the country. 44. The applicant further contends that following her application to the European Court of Human Rights, her daughter was dismissed from her post in a bank, and that although she was ranked 15th among 68 candidates in the examination to become a civil servant, she was not given a post. 45. Moreover, the applicant's representatives informed the Court on 21 January 2000 that on 15 December 1999 the applicant had a meeting with Professor Bakır Çağlar about her application before the Court. Professor Çağlar, who is a former agent of the Turkish Government in the cases before the European Court of Human Rights, allegedly told the applicant that she might be assassinated if she won her case before the Court and that her daughter's scholarship would be discontinued. However, the applicant submitted in her oral evidence to the Court's Delegates that Professor Çağlar had asked about the details of the case and that he had told her that he could win the case for her since, according to him, her lawyers were not very good. As she considered that he was connected to the authorities of the “TRNC” or of Turkey, she did not want to hand her case over to him. 46. The Government submit that at the time when Kutlu Adalı was employed as the private secretary of President Denktaş, he requested the President's support to evade military service. His request was rejected and Mr Adalı had to do his military service, which consisted of a short period of basic training and a remaining period of office work, which he performed at the Bayrak radio station. When he completed his military service, he was appointed as the Director of Registration. In December 1979 he was removed from his post by an instrument signed by the minister responsible, the Prime Minister and the Head of State pursuant to Article 93 of the Constitution of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus, and was appointed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Tourism as an adviser. Mr Adalı initiated proceedings in the High Administrative Court and requested the annulment of this action. Eventually, the courts accepted Mr Adalı's arguments and he was reinstated in his post in 1983. 47. The Government maintain that Mr Adalı pursued his career as a writer and a newspaper journalist while he was in the public service. He used to write under the pseudonym of “Kerem Atlı” not because it was dangerous for him to express his political views, but because there was a legal provision that civil servants should not be involved in daily politics and should act impartially. The vast majority of Turkish Cypriots did not agree with the views expressed by Mr Adalı. (b) Investigation into the killing of Mr Adalı 48. The Government submit that on 6 July 1996 at 11.40 p.m. a tip-off was received at the communications section of the Lefkoşa Police Headquarters on telephone no. 155 from an unidentified caller, stating that there had been a murder at the point where Ardıç Street crosses Akasya Street. 49. Following the tip-off two Land Rovers belonging to the special unit (çevik birlik) of the nearby Yenişehir police station, attached to the Lefkoşa Police Headquarters, came to the scene of incident, within a short time. They were followed by police vehicles bringing Criminal Investigation Department personnel from the Yenişehir and Lefkoşa Police Stations. The immediate area of the incident and the surrounding area were cordoned off by the police officers who started to work in order to identify the culprits. The Government underline the fact that all the vehicles used by the police and those by the Turkish Cypriot security forces are of a similar type and colour. 50. The investigation began immediately after the death of Kutlu Adalı. Early in the morning of 7 July 1996, at 3 a.m., police officers brought a doctor from the Nicosia (Lefkoşa) State Hospital to the scene of the incident. The doctor examined the body and established that Mr Adalı had died at the scene of the incident as a result of two bullet wounds in the areas of his left temple and left shoulder. A photographic fingerprinting officer took photographs of the scene of the incident. A sketch map of the scene of the incident indicated the positions of the empty cartridges. The body was then sent to the Nicosia State Hospital morgue for the purposes of an autopsy. Mr Adalı's corpse was shown to his brother-in-law by police officers at the hospital morgue. 51. On 7 July 1996 police officers drew up a list of residents, including the applicant's neighbours, in the Akasya and Ardıç streets. On the same day statements were taken from thirty-three persons as to their knowledge about the incident. 52. Following the autopsy carried out by Dr İsmail Bundak on 7 July 1996, the cause of death was identified as dismemberment of the internal organs, internal haemorrhage and supdural bleeding at the head as a result of the wounds sustained by being shot with a firearm. After the autopsy, the blue-coloured shirt, striped T-shirt, pair of slippers and pair of glasses which Mr Adalı was wearing were taken as evidence. 53. Between 8 and 31 July 1996 twenty-six further statements were taken from potential witnesses, including members of the applicant's family. 54. The investigation report of 13 July 1996 indicated persons who were not at home on the night of the impugned incident and their whereabouts at that time. 55. On 17 July 1996 the Deputy to the Head of Security Forces Command in Lefkoşa sent a bloodied T-shirt and a shirt belonging to Mr Adalı to the State Laboratory for an analysis of the blood. 56. On 18 July 1996 in an article, which appeared in the newspaper Milliyet under the headline “The murderer was someone he knew”, it was alleged that a few days before the murder, a Timur Ali from the Nationalist Thought Association had made statements in the Birlik newspaper such as “Kutlu Adalı must be destroyed like a dog by the council”. 57. On the same day, statements were taken by the police officers from Ali Tekman, a columnist who used the pen-name “Timur Ali”. In his statements the latter denied that he had made such allegations and claimed that he had never written for Birlik newspaper and that he was not a member of the Nationalist Thought Association. 58. The authorities investigated the applicant's allegations that at the time her husband was killed the street lights at the scene of the incident and in the vicinity were switched off. Subsequent to the enquiries made by Mr Ali Horoz, an equipment engineer at the Turkish Cyprus Electricity Company, it was established that the electricity for the street lights at the place of the incident and in the nearby Akasya, Akalan, Bağarası, Söğüt and Altınova Streets was provided by the “Sıdıka Çatozlu” power supply and not from the power supply of the Civil Defence Organisation as alleged by the applicant. After statements had been taken from the residents in the area, it was established that there had not been a power cut on the night of Mr Adalı's murder and that even if, as alleged by the applicant, the power supply in the courtyard of the Civil Defence Headquarters had been interfered with in order to affect the street lamps, it would not have been possible to switch off the street lights at the scene of the incident or in the streets in the vicinity. 59. A ballistic examination was also carried out on the used cartridges. Following the examination of 14 used cartridges, the ballistics report of 6 August 1996 stated that they were 9-mm Parabellum-type cartridges that had been fired from one single gun at close range. It was further noted in the report that the cartridges and the bullet cores were not linked to any other cartridges or bullet cores that had hitherto been found within the territory of the “TRNC” or recorded in the files on murders by unknown assailants. 60. On 15 October 1996 the applicant submitted a petition to the Telephone Directorate in Nicosia, stating that she and her family had been disturbed by calls made from a certain number. At the applicant's request a tapping device was put on to the applicant's telephone line (no. 2274089). 61. On 12 November 1996 a call was received from the telephone number 2271851, and the authorities found out that the number belonged to a certain Mr Cahit Hüray, whose telephone line was then cut off. Following a request made by a person named B.K., the telephone was reconnected on payment of a certain amount of money. The owner of the telephone line, Mr Hüray, sent a complaint to the Telephone Directorate on 18 November 1996 stating that he had never dialled the applicant's number. Mr Hüray requested an inquiry to be made into this disturbance. Thus, on 22 November 1996, an assistant police inspector took statements from the head of the technical section at the Telephone Directorate to clear this matter up. 62. On 4 March 1998 the police assistant inspector in charge of the investigation, Ahmet Soyalan, concluded his report on the investigation. In his concluding remarks, the inspector stated that it had not been possible to identify the murderer(s) and that he could not therefore reach a positive result for the investigation. 63. On 29 April 1998 the case was referred to the Attorney-General of the “TRNC”. 64. On 1 July 1998 the Attorney-General's office advised that the matter should be referred to a coroner for an inquest. 65. On 31 July 1998 the Nicosia Police Chief informed the Nicosia Coroner of the results of the investigation into the killing of Mr Adalı. He transmitted the full investigation file containing the statements of the witnesses and the investigating officer's report. 66. The hearing in Lefkoşa before the coroner commenced on 20 October 1998 and, following statements from witnesses, was concluded on 11 December 1998 with the delivery of the verdict. The coroner found that Kutlu Adalı had been shot dead on 6 July 1996 by unidentified person(s), and that his death had been caused by organ dismemberment, internal haemorrhage and subdural haemorrhage in the head. The coroner stated that the murderer(s) of the deceased could not be identified and declared the case closed. (c) The Government's observations in response to the applicant's allegations 67. The Government maintain that the allegation about the involvement of Abdullah Çatlı is no more than speculation. In this connection, they submit the “TRNC” records according to which Abdullah Çatlı's last visit to TRNC had been between 26 April 1996 and 1 May 1996. The Government emphasise the fact that Abdullah Çatlı was not in the “TRNC” on 6 July 1996, when Kutlu Adalı was killed. 68. The Government explain that public opinion was supportive of the loss of the applicant's husband. Public statements were made by the President, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Prime Minister and political party leaders, condemning the killing and calling for the assailants to be found. Moreover, Mr Adalı's name was assigned to the street where he lived by the Lefkoşa Municipal Council. 69. As regards the events that occurred after the death of the applicant's husband, the Government maintain that most of the applicant's allegations are highly exaggerated. In this connection, the Government note in the first place that the applicant herself asked for protection from the “TRNC” authorities and was told that she was already under the protection of plain-clothes policemen. 70. The Government further submit that in order to register a foundation in the name of Kutlu Adalı, an application should be made to the competent court and a court order should be obtained. On 2 April 1998 the Nicosia Family Court ordered the registration of the Kutlu Adalı Foundation after the applicant and eight other persons chose to follow the correct procedure. 71. In respect of the refusal of the applicant's request to cross to the southern part of Cyprus, the Government submit that the crossings of the Green Line to and from the Ledra Palace Gate between the “TRNC” and southern Cyprus are regulated by the rules and regulations of the “TRNC” and crossings are subject to restrictions due to security precautions. The “TRNC” authorities have the right to suspend permission to cross the border. 72. The Government further submit that the St. Barnabas incident which occurred in March 1996 was a security operation. There was no damage to the icons or to the archaeology museum. Upon receipt of intelligence reports to the effect that illegal arms had been hidden in the tomb, the security forces conducted an operation there. The Government state that the Civil Defence Organisation was not involved in the incident. 73. The Government explain that pursuant to Law No. 7/1974 providing for aid to families of martyrs and victims of events, a martyr denotes a person who lost his life in the performance of duties assigned to him by lawful orders, in the protection of the rights of the “TRNC” in the struggle against illegal acts. 74. Moreover, the Government contend that the applicant's daughter was dismissed from her post in the Erbank on account of disorderly conduct on 12 October 1998. The application was communicated to the Government on 26 December 1998; therefore, as the dismissal of the applicant's daughter occurred before the communication of the application, this incident cannot be attributed to the authorities. The Government also state that the applicant's daughter had ranked 52nd (not 15th as alleged) amongst 68 candidates in the examination to become a civil servant. The result of this exam was published in the Official Gazette dated 23 September 1998. 75. The facts of the case being in dispute between the parties, the Court conducted an investigation with the assistance of the parties. In this connection, four delegates of the Court took oral evidence from the applicant on 8 October 2002. Six further witnesses were heard by the Delegates on 23 and 24 June 2003 in Lefkoşa, Cyprus. The evidence given by the witnesses may be summarised as follows. 76. Mrs Adalı was born in 1944. In addition to her earlier submissions she claimed the following. 77. Prior to the events in question, Mr Kutlu Adalı's writing led to his being prosecuted by the authorities on one occasion. On 15 August 1981 police officers searched their house because her husband had allegedly insulted President Denktaş in an article. The search warrant was signed by Emin Okur, a judge in Kyrenia. The authorities wanted to find out the identity of the author of the article “Minaredeki Deli” (the mad on the minaret) and whether it was Kutlu Adalı who was using the name Kerem Atlı. The prosecution was subsequently discontinued for lack of evidence. None of the books and articles written by the applicant's husband were ever seized or confiscated. 78. No further incidents occurred until after her husband's article on the St Barnabas monastery was published in Yenidüzen on 17 March 1996. On the day of publication the head of the Civil Defence Organisation, Galip Mendi, telephoned the newspaper and made threats, which were indirectly aimed at her husband because he was the author of the article. Following the St Barnabas incident Mr Mendi was removed from his post. He left Cyprus two days before the killing of the applicant's husband and returned two years later. He was currently in charge of the security services. 79. The Civil Defence Organisation was an organisation initially established in order to help the people and to assist them in defending themselves in the event of disasters such as a fire or the outbreak of war. People who were no longer eligible on grounds of age belonged to the Organisation and were called into service if there was an emergency. A commander belonging to the military stood at the head of the organisation. The applicant did not accept that it was a civil organisation – she was of the opinion that it was a special and secret organisation attached to the Prime Minister. 80. Whilst in his post as Director General of Population Issues, her husband had been a senior manager within the Civil Defence Organisation. The applicant only learned about this after her husband's death, when amongst his papers she found the 1975 decision of the Council of Ministers appointing him. 81. Erhan Arıklı, a member of the Nationalist Thought Association, wrote to Yenidüzen threatening Kutlu Adalı. Mr Arıklı also had an article, entitled “The Red Disease”, published in the pro-Government newspaper Birlik in which he wrote, using the pseudonym Timur Ali, that leftist people should be shot like stray dogs by municipal officials. It was true that in her interview with the Milliyet newspaper the applicant had said that, in “The Red Disease”, Mr Arıklı had written that her husband should be put down like a dog. This was in any event how she had interpreted the article. 82. In December 1996, when the applicant was going through her husband's papers, she discovered a letter, dated 1990, written to her husband by the fascist Nationalist Thought Association and signed by Mr Arıklı. She perceived its contents as threatening. 83. It was not only Yenidüzen which received threats: the applicant's husband himself also received many anonymous letters, saying that he would be killed in a week's time, and threatening telephone calls. As he was a very proud person, he did not report these threats to the police, although he did mention them in an article of 23 April 1996. Neither did he try to have the telephone calls traced. 84. On 6 July 1996, the day of her husband's killing, the applicant was in Istanbul to celebrate their daughter's birthday. Her husband had not accompanied them for financial reasons. She spoke to him by telephone at 11.15 p.m., fifteen minutes before he was killed. After her husband's death, she was unable to see his body. Her brother-in-law did see the body. 85. Being of the firm belief that her husband had been assassinated by Government agents, the applicant herself conducted an investigation. She handed the results of this investigation, in the form of a written statement, to the police chief Mehmet Özdamar. She was not given a copy of it. 86. As regards her investigation, the applicant said that, as time went by, her neighbours - the persons living around her and across the street from her- started giving her information. For example, Ayşe Mehta told her that she had seen a black Murat car driving rapidly to the Civil Defence Organisation headquarters that day. Ms Mehta lived on Şehit Ecvet Yusuf Street, which ran parallel to the street where the applicant and her husband were living. It was also the street where the Civil Defence Organisation was based. None of the inhabitants of Şehit Ecvet Yusuf Street were interviewed by the police. The police said that these people had not been at home when the incident had occurred, but this was not true. 87. Other neighbours, Arzu Çağın and Ali Rıza Kırçay, mentioned a dark red Şahin and a dark-coloured car respectively. 88. Based on these statements, the applicant formed the opinion that the car had been a black Murat, although she acknowledged that it might also have been a Şahin since Şahin and Murat cars looked the same. 89. Ms Mehta also told her that the two lamp-posts on Ardıç Street, around the applicant's house, had been switched off at 10.30 p.m. Ms Mehta did not see when they had come back on, but she did notice that they were on after the murder. This was something that used to – and continued to - happen quite frequently. Only the lights around the applicant's house would be off and the applicant and her family would be left in darkness. A sibling of the applicant had explained to her that this was done by removing the fuse from the fuse-box in an individual lamppost. 90. Two other neighbours – Turkish students, living in the basement of the building next door – refused to speak to the applicant and left Cyprus three days after the killing. However, they did gave a statement to the police. 91. Erinç Aydınova, a fourteen-year-old child of a neighbour, was one of the first persons to find the body of the applicant's husband. He was so afraid that he had still not spoken to the applicant. He had made a statement to the police, but it was not complete: the boy did not tell the police that he had seen a car passing at great speed. The applicant's daughter found that information from him as she used to take him to school. The applicant was almost certain that the boy must have seen the make of the car given that, together with two other boys, he was the first to find the body. 92. Feri Khan and her mother lived across from the applicant's. They were at home on the night of the murder, saw a black Murat car without licence plates and heard shots, but the police had never asked them for statements. According to the police, Ms Khan and her mother had not been at home that night. 93. Following the murder, the applicant found a packet of dried nuts bought from the shop of Ziya Kasaboğlu in her house. Mr Kasaboğlu told the applicant that her husband had bought the nuts and that he had been killed afterwards. He said that it was because of this that he had been the one who had informed the family of the murder: he had telephoned the father-in-law of the applicant's sister. In actual fact, Mr Kasaboğlu was a plain-clothes policeman and the father-in-law was his superior. After the applicant's husband had died, Mr Kasaboğlu closed up his shop and moved to the village of İnönü. The applicant believed that Mr Kasaboğlu was involved in the incident because he did not come to speak to her and the police did not take a statement from him. In addition, her husband never used to buy nuts from his shop. The applicant asked the authorities to take a statement from Mr Kasaboğlu, but to no avail. She first made this request at a secret meeting in December 1996 with Hasan Peker Günal, commander of the security forces, and Attila Sav, the chief of police, which took place in the latter's office. She subsequently, and just as unsuccessfully, put the same request to many other authorities. 94. Altay Sayıl was a friend of the applicant's husband. They met about fifteen years before Kutlu Adalı's death and would occasionally meet to pursue cultural activities. Two to three years before the murder, their friendship intensified. Mr Sayıl often came to visit the applicant's husband and brought him classified documents, for example about the police. Her husband used these documents in his articles. As a result, the head of the security forces was removed from his post after those articles were published. Two nights before the killing, Mr Sayıl came to the applicant's house in a black Murat car. He said that it belonged to a friend. Apart from her mother, Mr Sayıl and his wife were the only persons who knew that the applicant was going to Istanbul. 95. The applicant suspected that Mr Sayıl was working for the intelligence services and that he had been using her husband. On the first night when she was questioned, Mr Özdamar told her that Mr Sayıl was a good person, and insinuated that Mr Sayıl had nothing to do with the murder. As the applicant felt Mr Özdamar to be prejudiced she did not tell him about Mr Sayıl handing documents to her husband, but she did mention it in the article in Aktüel. 96. Mr Sayıl did not come to the applicant's house for ten days after the murder; and then he only came because the applicant asked him to. On that occasion he denied having brought a booklet to the applicant's husband on the night of the murder. This booklet, which had been left in front of her husband's office, contained photographs of two journalists who had been assassinated in 1962. A photocopied picture of her husband had been superimposed on it. Months later, the applicant found the photograph from which the copy had been made upside down in an album amongst her husband's books. She also found out that a letter, saying that certain journalists had been killed, had been photocopied at a shop where Mr Sayıl's brother was working. 97. Shortly after the applicant's husband had been killed, a large number of police officers went into her house, ostensibly to guarantee the security of the house because, according to them, they found the door open and the television switched on. However, they turned everything upside down in the house and it took the applicant and her family two years to restore order amongst her husband's books and papers. The police were accompanied by the muhtar, Tahsin Ali Rıza. The muhtar was never questioned by the police. 98. Subsequently, both Mr Demirci and one Orhan Ceylan, who was a colonel, brought a court action against the applicant because of an article that had appeared in Milliyet. This is how the applicant found out about Orhan's surname. The police never took a statement from this individual, although Mr Demirci was interviewed by them. A statement was similarly not taken from Mustafa Asilhan who had dinner with Mr Demirci on the evening of the murder, according to the latter's statement. Mr Asilhan was now an adviser to the commander of the security forces. 99. The applicant later found out that Mr Demirci had been injured in an incident when his car had been shot at. When he was taken to hospital by local people, Mr Demirci shouted that an attempt had been made to kill him because he had killed Kutlu Adalı. The local people informed the police, but were told to forget about it. Mr Demirci was subsequently taken to a military hospital in Turkey where all his expenses were paid. Upon his return to Cyprus he became the private secretary of Mr Mendi. 100. Following the murder, the applicant spoke to Dr İsmail Bundak, who told her that no post mortem had been carried out but that her husband's body had been rayed. She was unable to find out whether this was true until, after she had lodged her application with the former Commission, she obtained a copy of the post mortem report together with the Government's observations. Dr Bundak did not give her the death certificate, in which the cause of death was stated as internal bleeding, until about one month after the incident. 101. The applicant's allegation to the effect that Abdullah Çatlı was involved in her husband's murder was not just based on newspaper reports. In 1997 she had a meeting with Fikri Sağlar, a member of the Turkish Parliament and chairman of the Turkish Susurluk committee. In 1998 and in 2001 the Parliament of the “TRNC” established its own Susurluk investigation committee, suspecting that there was a connection between Mr Çatlı and the murder of Kutlu Adalı. The applicant made statements to these committees, but did not have transcripts of her statements. The committees came to the conclusion that Mr Çatlı had visited Cyprus, using false identities, on many occasions and that around the time of her husband's murder he had been staying at the Jasmine Court hotel, with his expenses being paid by the army. When Mr Çatlı died in a car accident in November 1996, an Uzi was retrieved from the car. It is the applicant's opinion that this Uzi, which had gone missing from the Turkish police, was the weapon with which her husband had been shot. 102. Although the roads in the vicinity of the applicant's house were very quickly closed off by the military after the shooting of her husband, the roads in the outlying area, and especially those leading to the airport, were not. A taxi driver told the applicant that he had taken Abdullah Çatlı to the airport directly after the murder had been committed. 103. The applicant believed that Mr Sayıl, Mr Kasaboğlu, Mr Demirci and Mr Çatli were Government agents, that they had acted collectively and as a team and that they had killed her husband. She did not accept that he might have been killed by a private individual who was angered at her husband's writings. At the secret meeting with Mr Günal and Mr Sav in December 1996, she informed them of her suspicions. Mr Günal said that he had never heard the name of Mr Sayıl before but that he would follow it up. 104. The applicant was of the opinion that the security forces were opposed to an effective investigation being carried out into the killing of her husband. Shortly after the killing, Refik Öztümen, who was in charge of the judicial investigation, wanted to meet with her at her sister-in-law's house. The applicant refused because she was afraid at that time. Later on, Mr Öztümen told the applicant's sister-in-law that he had been given instructions by the security forces not to conduct the investigation effectively and that she, the applicant, should not follow it up either. 105. The applicant had been subjected to constant harassment after the death of her husband. She received threatening telephone calls. When she informed the police about this in 1996, they managed to trace a call to one Cahit Hüray who lived two streets away. The applicant had never met Mr Hüray, but she knew that he belonged to the Civil Defence Organisation. Mr Hüray was let off after paying a miserly fine. The telephone calls continued. The applicant bought an indicator to show the number of incoming telephone calls. When she received a telephone call from a man calling himself Ali who said that he was coming over to determine her fate, she informed the police as the indicator had shown the number that had been used. The police did nothing. 106. One evening, as the applicant was returning home after a meeting and stopped off at a neighbour's, she was told that there was somebody walking around in her garden. It turned out to be a neighbour and he was near the water tank. He did not explain what he was doing there. The applicant's sister-in-law, a chemist, advised her to change the water, which they did. The next day, the applicant found that her dog was dead. Its ribs and one of its legs were broken. The veterinary surgeon who conducted the autopsy said that the dog had not been run over by a car, because of a lack of tyre marks on the place where it was found. Her dog had been severely tortured elsewhere and then taken to her garden. 107. Also, the applicant's water and electricity were regularly cut off. Mail addressed to her was either not delivered or was opened. Her telephone calls were monitored. The applicant's complaints to the police, both orally and in writing, about this harassment led to nothing. 108. The application to establish the Adalı Foundation, which sixty democratic organisations wanted to set up in order to continue Kutlu Adalı's work, was initially refused. The registration fee was increased fivefold and the applicant sold a plot of land to raise the money. Also, the charter of the Foundation had to be changed. For example, the phrase “democratic activities” was replaced by “cultural activities”. 109. On 15 December 1999 the applicant met with Professor Bakır Çağlar, after he had asked her to send him the details of the case. However, he became cross when the documents which the applicant showed him did not include the agreements which she had concluded with her lawyers. He told her that her lawyers were not very good and that he could win the case for her. As she considered that he was connected to the authorities of the “TRNC” or of Turkey, she did not want to hand her case over to him. 110. In July 1996, her daughter was told she would get a job in the public sector but this did not materialise. She then found a job in a bank. However, her contract of employment was terminated from one day to the next, allegedly for disciplinary reasons but in reality it was because of the applicant had lodged an application with the Court. Also, her daughter was standing as a candidate for a party different from the party for which the owner of the bank was standing as a candidate. Her daughter wrote to, and subsequently met, President Denktaş about this matter. The President wrote out a cheque for the equivalent of two months' wages and told her to go home. Recently her daughter's scholarship had been discontinued. 111. On 19 August 2001 the applicant met with President Denktaş. At the presidential palace she met a man with the first name Tansel, who was the son-in-law of the police commander Erdem Demirbağ. Tansel told her that unless she withdrew her application she would be arrested. 112. The witness was born in 1962. In 1996 he was an assistant inspector at the judicial branch of the Lefkoşa police headquarters. Mr Mehmet Özdamar, who was his superior, was the head of the judicial branch, attached to the general police headquarters. Mr Refik Öztümen was the chief of Yenişehir police station. In an investigation, the local police station would report to the judicial branch and the judicial branch would report to the head of the judicial branch. 113. The witness was responsible for the investigation into the killing of Kutlu Adalı. He started his investigation at 9 a.m. on 7 July 1996. He had known Mr Adalı by name from the articles he wrote for Yenidüzen, but he had never met him. Although it was possible that Mr Adalı had been killed because of his activities as a journalist, this was not the only line of inquiry he pursued: he also looked into Mr Adalı's personal life and his personality. 114. Not having been on duty on the evening of 6 July, The witness did not go to the scene of the crime that night. He was only informed of the murder the following morning and received a short briefing from Mr Öztümen as to what had been done the previous night. 115. Chief Inspector Eybil Efendi and his colleagues from the rapid response unit had been the first police officers to arrive at the scene. Whilst out on patrol duty, they heard shots and went to the location of the incident. Mr Efendi informed the general police headquarters. Upon hearing the shots, local people also alerted the police switchboard. Not long afterwards, Mr Özdamar and Mr Öztümen, the assistant chief of police Yusuf Özkum and police sergeant Mustafa Eğmez, as well as officers working at the judicial branch and the Yenişehir police station, arrived at the site. This constituted normal police attendance in a murder case. 116. The witness did not consider it necessary to take a statement from Mr Efendi because he, Mr Soyalan, had been briefed by Mr Öztümen, who had arrived at the scene so soon after Mr Efendi that the latter would not have seen anything different from Mr Öztümen. If Mr Efendi had seen or heard anything, he would have told Mr Öztümen. In 2002, however, Mr Soyalan took a statement from Mr Efendi in order to show that, contrary to what the applicant alleged in her application to the Court, no military vehicles were present at the scene and that the vehicles of the rapid response unit resembled military vehicles. 117. The witness was further told by Mr Öztümen that after the discovery of Mr Adalı's body, police had entered the applicant's house, together with the muhtar, in order to check if any of the family members were at home and if they were safe, and also to see if any clues about the murder could be found there. The door of the house was open, the television was switched on and a table and chairs were on the veranda. Nothing untoward was found. No search as such of the house was carried out, merely a visual inspection. It was not considered necessary to take a statement from the muhtar, as no evidence was found in the house and neither did anything untoward happen. No fingerprint examination was carried out at the house, given that the incident had taken place outside the house and the interior of the house was thus not a crime scene. In addition, the applicant herself said that when she had spoken to her husband by telephone at 11 p.m., her husband had told her that he had not received any visitors. One or two neighbours stated that when they had passed the house around 8 p.m., there had been no one in there. 118. From the statements taken by Mr Öztümen and his colleagues directly after the incident, it appeared that a dark-coloured car with many lights at the rear had been seen. Its make or registration was not known, and no one had mentioned to the witness that it had been a Murat car. A search was carried out that night but the vehicle, which had left the scene at high speed, was not found. The witness spoke to Arzu Çağın the day after her initial statement had been taken by one of his colleagues. She said that she did not know what make or colour the car was. He did not draw up a written report of this statement, given that it did not contain any positive indications. The witness disputed that at the inquest, Ms Çağın had given evidence to the effect that the car was Bordeaux red and that it might have been a Şahin. 119. The witness started his investigation on the morning after the incident by taking statements, together with police colleagues, from the people living in the area of the scene of the crime. This work had already commenced the previous evening, so that in the end statements were taken from all persons who had been at home at the time of the incident, regardless of whether or not they had any information to offer. It was the local police officers, who knew the area and its inhabitants well, who established who had been at home and who had not. Since no statement was taken from Feri Khan and her mother, they must have been out when the offence had taken place. The witness knew nothing about the applicant asking Hasan Peker Günal, commander of the security forces, to have the Khans interviewed. 120. The witness took the applicant's statement on the evening of 7 July, after she had returned from Turkey. The applicant expressed her opinion that the killing of her husband was connected to the articles he had written about the St Barnabas incident. According to the applicant, the head of the Civil Defence Organisation, Mr Galip Mendi, had been annoyed by these articles and had telephoned Yenidüzen making threats against her husband. The applicant persistently claimed that the murder had been arranged by the administration of the Civil Defence Organisation and that she held the head of that organisation responsible. She also aired these suspicions in her interview with Aktüel (see paragraph 190 in the Appendix). Mr Özdamar and mr Öztümen were also aware of these allegations. However, not even the smallest piece of evidence could be found to support the allegation. For that reason no statements were taken from the head or other persons belonging to the Civil Defence Organisation. In any event, a statement could not be taken from Mr Mendi because he had gone abroad. Mr Mendi returned in 2001 as the commander of the security forces. 121. Similarly, the applicant alleged that on the night of the murder the street lighting in Ardıç Street, where she lived, had been switched off at the transformer substation in the Civil Defence Organisation. This matter was examined and it was established through the taking of statements that the street lights had been on that night. It was further established that power for the lighting in the street was supplied from a different substation. 122. In her statement to Mr Soyalan, the applicant also mentioned Ahmet Cavit An, according to whom Mr Adalı's killing was a politically motivated murder. Mr Soyalan went to see Mr Cavit An, once at his house and once at the clinic where he worked. Mr Cavit An was unable to provide any useful information as to the secret cells allegedly involved in the murder. 123. The witness had not heard that the applicant had been refused permission to see her husband's body. He was not given any instructions to the effect that, because the applicant had given critical newspaper interviews, he should not give her a copy of the post mortem and ballistic reports. In any event, in order to obtain a copy of such documents, permission from the Attorney-General's office was required. 124. The witness took two statements from Altay Sayıl. He first interviewed Mr Sayıl because he had been informed that Mr Sayıl was a close friend of Mr Adalı. However, in the light of articles that subsequently appeared in newspapers he felt the need to take a more in-depth statement from Mr Sayıl. Mr Sayıl attended the mevlit (religious ceremony) held at the applicant's house three days after the killing. He did not go to the house subsequently because of the allegations which the applicant had made against him. 125. The weapon which was used to kill Mr Adalı could not be identified. A number of spent cartridges were found at the site from which it could be established that they had been fired by a 9 mm firearm, but the make of the weapon remained unknown. Ballistic tests were carried out both in Turkey and in the “TRNC” to see if the bullets had been fired by a weapon known to the authorities, but to no avail. These tests included comparisons of sample cartridges held in the archives of the “TRNC” of all the weapons registered in the names of persons in the “TRNC”, such as the weapon belonging to Mr Orhan Ceylan. 126. Two of the spent cartridges were kept in the archives in Turkey. The witness therefore assumed that the Turkish authorities had examined whether they had been fired by the Uzi found in the car in which Abdullah Çatlı had died in Susurluk in November 1996. He had not been informed of any result. In any event, the investigation showed that Mr Çatlı had not been in the “TRNC” at the time of the incident as there were no records of him entering the “TRNC” at the relevant time under any of the identities which Mr Çatlı was known to have used. He had visited the island, under the name of Mehmet Özbay, in June 1994 and in April/May 1996. It was not possible to enter the “TRNC” without an entry record being made by the immigration authorities. 127. The applicant did not inform the witness or any other police officers that she had received an anonymous telephone call from a woman alleging that Mr Demirci and a man with the first name Orhan had been involved in the killing. However, some time after the incident, a woman, who could not be identified, telephoned Mr Özkum, the then head of the judicial branch, and gave him the name of Hüseyin Demirci. Mr Özkum passed the name on to Mr Özdamar, who proceeded to take Mr Demirci's statement. 128. On the evening of the incident, Mr Demirci had dinner with Mustafa Asilhan, the then assistant chief of police, in Gemikonağı. Although no statement was taken from Mr Asılhan at that time, Mr Özdamar did speak to Mr Asılhan about the matter, and Mr Asılhan said that Police Officer Muharrem Göç had seen the two men having dinner. Mr Göç subsequently confirmed this in a statement to Mr Özdamar. In any event, Mr Asılhan himself also confirmed that he had had dinner with Mr Demirci on 6 July 1996 when his statement was taken in 2002. 129. The witness did not consider it likely that Mr Demirci could have been involved in the killing after he had left the restaurant because such an assassination required preparation. Mr Demirci said that he had gone straight home after dropping off Mr Asılhan – and as Mr Özdamar had not formed the opinion that Mr Demirci was speaking anything other than the truth, this matter was not examined further. 130. According to the witness, Mr Demirci – a self-employed ironmonger – had no relations with the police or the security forces. He checked to see whether Mr Demirci had a criminal record as there was an allegation that he had been acquitted on a murder charge, but there was no information that he had ever committed any criminal offence. 131. The witness further examined whether Mr Demirci had been admitted to hospital with burns, as was alleged by the applicant in her application to the Court. He established that Mr Demirci had spent three days in hospital in February 1997 for broken ribs. Mr Demirci was not asked about this because his stay in hospital did not coincide with the murder of Mr Adalı. In any event, had the incident alleged by the applicant really occurred – namely that Mr Demirci opened fire inside the hospital, saying “I killed Kutlu Adalı” – it would have been reported to the police. 132. The information reported to the police was only connected to Mr Demirci and did not mention Orhan Ceylan. However, at some point there was a report in the press to the effect that Mr Ceylan had committed the murder along with Mr Demirci. Mr Ceylan's statement was not taken at that time given that Mr Demirci's whereabouts on the evening of the murder had already been established and it was thus known that Mr Demirci had not been in contact with Mr Ceylan that night. 133. The witness nonetheless took a statement from Mr Ceylan on 18 October 2002, but only because his name had come up in the application to the Court – there was not a shred of evidence or any indication that he had been involved in the killing. 134. The witness took a statement from Ziya Kasapoğlu on 21 October 2002, also because his name was mentioned in the application to the Court. Prior to that, Mr Soyalan was not aware that Mr Kasapoğlu might possess information relating to the incident: Mr Kasapoğlu's shop was in Şehit Ecvet Yusuf Street, far from the scene of the crime. Mr Kasapoğlu told him that Mr Adalı had come to his shop at 11 p.m. to buy some dried fruit and nuts, as he used to do from time to time. Mr Kasapoğlu said that he had not telephoned anybody to inform the applicant's family of the death of Mr Adalı. The witness could not check the veracity of this claim, as he did not have the name of the person whom Mr Kasapoğlu was alleged to have telephoned. The witness could not remember whether he had been informed that, according to the applicant, Mr Kasapoğlu had telephoned the father of her sister-in-law. Mr Kasapoğlu further stated that he had not received any telephone calls from the applicant. 135. Mr Soyalan was requested by the Agent of the respondent Government, Professor Necatigil, to carry out an investigation in connection with the allegations made by the applicant to the Court. He received no specific instructions, only a document containing the applicant's allegations. 136. Apart from taking statements from a number of persons, Mr Soyalan also took photographs of a Murat, a Şahin and a Fiat car so that they could be compared. He further investigated the applicant's claim that Mr Demirci's azure blue car had been repainted black. It was established that the car's colour was its original blue. 137. The witness was born in 1953. He is currently the chief of police in Güzelyurt. At the time of the impugned incident, he was the head of the judicial branch at the Police Headquarters in Lefkoşa (Nicosia). He supervised the investigation into the killing of Mr Adalı. He was the supervisor of Ahmet Soyalan and Refik Öztümen. He was informed about the incident by the switchboard and arrived at the scene of the incident within ten or fifteen minutes. According to the procedure on conducting investigations, the person who arrives at the scene of the incident must not touch anything and must take security precautions until those in charge arrive. There was a corpse and its position had to be established by his supervisees. When he arrived Mr Refik Öztümen and Mr Yusuf Özkum were already at the scene of the crime. The officers marked and numbered the empty cartridges and cordoned the area off with a view to preventing unauthorised persons from walking around. A sketch-map of the scene of the incident was drawn up and a team was set up in order to take testimonies from people nearly. 138. The witness entered Mr Adalı's house three or four hours after the incident, along with Refik Öztümen, a close relative of the deceased and the local muhtar. The door was open and the TV was on. They looked for a document, an item or anything that could have been the cause of the incident. They did not remove any object. Mr Adalı's office was in disorder and there were a large number of books which were piled up or arranged in boxes. Refik Öztümen told the witness that he had entered the house for a very short time in order to check whether there was anybody in. 139. The witness did not consider it necessary to look for fingerprints since the incident had happened in the street and not in the house. According to the statements given by the deceased's next door neighbour, Mr Ali Rıza Kırçay, the deceased was sitting on the terrace by himself and watching television. On the basis of the latter statement the witness excluded the possibility that Mr Adalı could have been sitting with some other persons on the terrace. The witness identified a glass, a bottle and an ashtray in a photograph shown to him. He emphasised that it was the custom to drop the shells into an ashtray when eating dried nuts, especially pumpkin seeds, and that it was normal for someone to sit on the balcony and drink water during a hot night in summer. 140. The witness knew the deceased by sight and through his articles in an opposition newspaper. When investigating into the murder every aspect of the case was considered, be it a political crime or one related to Mr Adalı's activities as a journalist. However, there was no evidence significant enough to lead to any of these conclusions. He was informed about the applicant's allegation that the head of the Civil Defence Organisation had made threats against Mr Adalı personally or against the newspaper because of an article concerning the St Barnabas incident. The prosecuting authorities did not verify this allegation since the applicant could not name anyone and she had constantly made similar inconsistent allegations at the time of the incident and for some time afterwards. They did not consider them to be serious. As an example of her inconsistent allegations, the witness referred to the applicant's statements in which she had described Mr Altay Sayıl as a close friend of her husband who visited their home every day, and had then complained to the authorities that she suspected of Mr Sayıl of involvement in the murder. 141. Following the receipt of an anonymous telephone call alleging that a person named Hüseyin Demirci and another person described as Colonel Orhan were involved in the killing, the prosecuting authorities found Mr Demirci and took statements from him about the allegations. It was established that Mr Demirci had been outside Lefkoşa on the night of the incident. In particular, he had been at a dinner in the Güzelyurt area in the company of Mr Mustafa Asilhan, who was the first assistant of the Chief of Police, and Mr Muharrem Göç, a police inspector. Mr Asilhan confirmed to the witness that he had been out for dinner with Mr Demirci. A statement was also taken from from Mr Göç. The anonymous caller was a lady who could not be identified. The witness denied having told the applicant that the anonymous caller was a crazy woman who had often made such allegations to the police. 142. The witness knew Mr Altay Sayıl from the time they had enrolled to the police academy and had attended the same course. However, he denied having told the applicant that Mr Sayıl was a very good person and that he had nothing to do with the killing. He had never spoken to the applicant about Mr Sayıl. The witness had never taken a statement from the applicant in relation to Kutlu Adalı and the applicant had never approached him to be supplied with a copy of such a statement. The witness further stressed that no security commander had been dismissed or forced to relinquish his post for any reason, contrary to the applicant's allegation that the chief of the security forces had been removed from his post because of the articles written by Mr Adalı on the basis of the documents supplied by Mr Altay Sayıl. 143. Regarding a tip-off to Yusuf Özkum, who was then the Chief of Police, about Mr Demirci, the witness stated that they had had no chance to investigate the woman caller since she had not given her name and had asked her identity to be kept secret. 144. On 8 July 1996 the pro-Government newspaper Kıbrıs reported that it had received a statement from a fascist group called the Turkish Revenge Brigade claiming responsibility for the murder. No investigation was conducted into this allegation as such an organisation did not exist in the “TRNC” and the investigating authorities considered that the allegation had been made as a ploy designed to cause confusion. 145. The applicant had never asked the witness to supply her with a copy of the autopsy report. In any event, documents contained in the investigation file were confidential. Only the investigating officer and his superiors as well as the Attorney-General's office could have access to them. The witness was not involved in the subsequent investigation that followed from 15 October 2002. 146. The witness was born in 1953. He is currently working at the judicial branch attached to the “TRNC” General Police Headquarters. At the time of the incident, he was the chief of Yenişehir police station, attached to the Lefkoşa police headquarters. 147. The witness was informed about the impugned incident at 11.40 p.m. at the station. He sent the sergeant on duty at the station to the scene of the incident together with a team. He further asked for a doctor from the local hospital to be sent to the scene of the incident. Following their departure, he also went to the scene of the crime along with a police officer. He arrived there at 11.45 p.m. Eybil Efendi arrived later. He saw the deceased lying on the ground 55 metres from the door of his house in Ardıç Street. He checked the deceased and took his pulse. He then called out “Anybody in?”. The door was open and the television was on. There was nobody in the house. He learned from the neighbour waiting outside that his family was abroad. At around 3 or 3.30 a.m. the witness entered the house along with the muhtar, Yusuf Özkum, Mehmet Özdamar and the brother‑in‑law of the deceased. They looked for a clue that could have shed light on the incident. They visited the study room and other rooms. They did not conduct an in-depth search by, for example, opening the drawers. However, they could not find anything. The television was located at the entrance of the house and it was on. There was one plastic chair and one table on the terrace. This gave the impression that Mr Adalı had been sitting on the terrace just before he was killed inn the street. They did not consider taking fingerprints on account of the fact that the incident had taken place outside the house. There was nothing on the terrace; no glasses and bottles or any trace indicating that cigarettes had been smoked. Had the officers found glasses, they would have been examined for fingerprints. 148. The officers assigned by the witness visited the families living in the close vicinity and further away from the scene of the incident and noted their names. Those who were at home at the time of incident were interviewed. The officers also went to the home of the Khan family of Pakistani origin. They established that the family was not at home. The witness rang the bell of the Khan family the next day and the following evening but to no avail. The Khan family's neighbour, Ali Rıza Bey (Kırçay), told the witness that they were not in. The police officers guarded the applicant's house until she arrived from abroad. 149. Apart from the cartridges found at the scene of the incident, the applicant and the officers in charge conducted a search along the whole street with a view to finding anything that might have been left by the assailants. But, they could not find anything. The cartridges found at the scene of the incident were first examined against the ones in the “TRNC” and no matches could be found. Then they were sent to a forensic laboratory in Ankara. However, no positive result had been obtained about the weapon which could have discharged them. The weapon found in the possession of Abdullah Çatlı following his death was also put through a forensic test. The result was negative. 150. The witness denied that he was related to the applicant in response to a claim by the latter. He remarked, however, that his brother's daughter had married to the applicant's sister-in-law. The witness had never met or spoken to the applicant prior to the impugned incident. In this connection, he rejected the applicant's allegation that he had told her sister-in-law that the security forces had given him instructions not to follow the investigation effectively. The witness further stressed that the applicant had never asked him to take statements from Mr Ziya Kasapoğlu. The witness also denied the applicant's assertion that he had asked to meet her at her sister-in-law's house. He maintained that he had met the applicant at least ten times at her house following her husband's death. He had also spoken to the applicant in connection with the damaged tyre incident and also in connection with other problems. 151. The witness led the investigation carried out in October 2002. In 1996 Mr İsmail Koşman was the commander of the security forces. In August of the same year he was replaced by Hasan Peker Günal. No investigation was carried out into the role of the Civil Defence Organisation since no allegation involving the responsibility of the latter was communicated to the authorities. However, the Ministry of National Education investigated the St Barnabas incident and concluded that the Civil Defence Organisation had conducted an exercise. 152. The applicant had never made an allegation in relation to Orhan Ceylan in the course of their talks or meetings. The distance between Gemikonağı and Lefkoşa was approximately 55-60 kilometres, in other words approximately an hour's distance. 153. The witness was born in 1948. He is currently a retired major‑general. In July 1996 he was the commander of a commando brigade in south-east Anatolia in Turkey. Between 19 August 1996 and 15 August 1998 he served as the commander of the security forces in the “TRNC”. Subsequent to his arrival on the island, the witness learned about the killing of Mr Adalı through the articles in the press. In view of the allegations that the Turkish armed forces had been involved in the killing of Mr Adalı, he asked the General Police Headquarters to brief him about the impugned event. At the end of August or early September 1996 Mr Atilla Sav and his delegation briefed the witness about the killing of Mr Adalı and the current state of the investigation at the office of the Chief of police. The witness remarked that, according to the Constitution of the “TRNC”, the police were under the authority of the commander of the security forces in the administrative field, and in the judicial field it operated under the supervision of the chief prosecutor's office. The commander of the security forces was responsible to the Prime Minister. 154. The applicant wrote a letter to the witness complaining about the conduct of the investigation. He told her through the police liaison officer that he was unable to intervene in a judicial affair but, if she wished, he could meet her. The applicant accepted and a meeting was held on 12 December 1996 at the office of the chief of police, Mr Atilla Sav. At the meeting were the latter, the applicant, her daughter, the witness and few other police officers who were involved in the investigation. During the meeting the applicant was given all relevant information about the investigation. The witness did not intervene in the discussions but asked the investigators to take all necessary measures to find the perpetrators of the murder so that they could save the honour of the “TRNC” and that of the security forces whose involvement in the impugned event was in question. The police officers listened to the applicant's statements and requests. At no stage did she ask for protection. She stated at the meeting that she had been threatened several times and that she had been receiving anonymous calls. 155. The witness denied having told the applicant that she had already been protected by plain-clothes police officers. At the meeting, the applicant did not make an allegation in relation to the Civil Defence Organisation. The witness denied that he had pointed at the cars outside through the window of the meeting room and had told the applicant that they were there to protect her, since the room was a small office where you could not look out and see a car outside. This meeting was not a secret one. It was reported in the press. 156. The witness spoke to the applicant on other occasions and once met her concerning her late husband's entitlements for the period of his military service. The witness was further informed about developments in the investigation in the course of monthly coordination meetings. He told the police force to examine even the slightest suspicion. He also made it clear to them that if they wanted to investigate anything connected with the armed forces or any members of the armed forces he would not obstruct it in any way even if that person was the highest-ranking officer. There was not however the slightest indication of any member of the security forces being involved in the matter. According to the witness, there was no political motive behind the murder. 157. The witness had not heard any allegations about Colonel Orhan Ceylan. In his opinion, the latter could be a retired colonel or lieutenant colonel who was working in an administrative post in security at the time. During his term of office in the “TRNC”, no one under his command was ever the subject of an investigation. The witness noted that the Civil Defence Organisation was not a unit under the authority of the security forces but was responsible to the Prime Minister. 158. The witness, who was born in 1938, is a former police chief who retired on 4 May 1998. In July 1996 he was the Chief of Police in the “TRNC”. 159. He learned about the killing of Mr Adalı whilst he was at an engagement party. He arrived at the scene of the incident almost an hour and a half after the killing of Mr Adalı. The police had already secured the house and barred the public from entering. The witness stayed at the crime scene for half an hour. He entered the Adalı family's house along with other officers and did not notice anything out of the ordinary. He knew Mr Adalı by name. He had not seen him before. However, he knew that Mr Adalı was a journalist who wrote articles in the Yenidüzen, critical of the Government. He was regularly informed by the officers about developments in the investigation. 160. On 12 December 1996 a meeting was held in the witness' office with the applicant, her daughter, Mr Hasan Peker Günal and Mr Mehmet Özdamar, who was then the chief of the forensic police. The meeting was held at the request of the applicant. The latter gave all relevant information to the participants about the impugned incident and complained that she had been receiving anonymous phone calls during which she had been threatened. She was advised to apply to the telecommunications department to have her line monitored. The applicant raised her suspicion about Mr Hüseyin Demirci and she was told that statements statements from Mr Demirci had been taken by the police 161. The witness stated that he had known Mr Ziya Kasapoğlu since 1956. He also knew Mr Altay Sayıl as a police officer who was now retired. He did not remember whether Mr Sayıl and Mr Kasapoğlu's names had been mentioned during the meeting. Nor did he know or remember the applicant's allegations about Colonel Orhan Ceylan or the Civil Defence Organisation. The witness did not remember whether any notes had been taken as regards the applicant's statements or allegations at the meeting. 162. The witness did not need to intervene in the investigation in any way since there were no deficiencies. It was being conducted according to its normal course. The applicant had not told the witness about her suspicion concerning the involvement of the Civil Defence Organisation in the killing of her husband. The witness pointed out that it would have been inappropriate to qualify the killing of Mr Adalı as politically motivated before concluding the investigation. The witness further noted that when the police had completed the investigation, the files had been given to the chief prosecutor who had supervised the investigation. As regards a question pertaining to the handing over of Mr Adalı's glasses to his widow, the witness remarked that only the materials which were considered to be part of the evidence had been retained. He stated that Mr Adalı's glasses could have been considered as irrelevant in respect of the investigation. The witness stressed that, during the meeting which took place in his office on 12 December 1996, the commander of the security forces had not pointed at cars outside the building telling the applicant that they were protecting her. He noted that the office did not have a window overlooking the car park. 163. The witness, who was born in 1951, is currently the Field Operations Deputy Chief-of-Staff in the Turkish armed forces. He was the head of the Civil Defence Organisation between August 1994 and July 1996. He served as the commander of the TRNC security forces between 2000 and 2002. 164. According to the “TRNC” legislation, the head of the Civil Defence Organisation can be any person, whether a civilian or a military person, provided that that person is a Turkish national. Given the fact that this post requires expertise and that the “TRNC” is a newly established state, the heads of the Civil Defence Organisation are appointed from among the members of the Turkish armed forces. 165. The Civil Defence Organisation is a humanitarian rescue organisation, which protects institutions and organisations as well as the life and property of the civilian population during wartime or in the event of natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes. The organisation does not have any military functions. The officers of the organisation do not wear uniform and do not possess arms. However, in certain rescue operations, in cases of fire or floods, they wear special clothing. There is no organisational link between the armed forces and the Civil Defence Organisation, the latter being directly under the authority of the Prime Minister's office. Yet, in certain cases, such as floods, fire or war, the Civil Defence Organisation cooperates with the military in the performance of its tasks. The Civil Defence Organisation is not a secret organisation or an intelligence agency as alleged by the applicant. 166. The witness did not know Mr Adalı personally. He used to read Mr Adalı's articles published in the Yenidüzen newspaper. He further knew that the applicant had worked in the civil defence people's army. She held a post in Girne (Kyrenia) People's Army. The civilian population assisted the authorities in cases of calamity. The age limit for this civilian duty was 50 for women and 60 in respect of men. Mr and Ms Adalı were also given certificates for their services at a ceremony organised in Girne. This was the only occasion on which the witness had met them. The witness also remarked that Mr Adalı had represented the Ministry of Culture in the Civil Defence Committee between 1978 and 1980. 167. The witness denied that the Civil Defence Organisation could have been involved in the killing of Mr Adalı. He further noted that he had not been involved in the investigation into the impugned event and that this was the first time he had been questioned about it. The witness was aware of the allegations that the Civil Defence Organisation had been involved in the killing of Mr Adalı. However, neither he nor the Civil Defence Organisation had a problem with Mr Adalı. Nor did he bear any grudge against him since he did not know him. He did not deem it necessary to carry out an investigation within the organisation as he considered that the allegations were totally unfounded. 168. The witness's term of office ended a month after the incident and he left the island in August 1996. On his return to Turkey, he reported to his superiors that neither he nor any other person in the Civil Defence Organisation had been involved in the murder. 169. The witness averred that the St Barnabas incident had in no way been connected with the Civil Defence Organisation. It was an anti-terrorist operation carried out by the peace forces command at the time. Thus, the allegations that the Civil Defence Organisation was involved in the St Barnabas incident were untrue. The witness pointed out that these allegations stemmed from the fact that his organisation had allocated a civilian car to the peace forces, who wore official uniforms, for an operation conducted against the PKK. Apart from the allocation of a car, the Civil Defence Organisation had not intervened in any activity connected with the St Barnabas incident. 170. There were many newspaper articles on the St Barnabas incident and the alleged involvement of the Civil Defence Organisation. Some of these articles were written by Mr Adalı in Yenidüzen. The witness did not call on any newspaper to refute those allegations, but instructed his colleagues in the press department of the Civil Defence Organisation to telephone the newspaper and tell them that the organisation had not been involved in the St Barnabas incident. One of his colleagues conveyed the message to the newspaper, possibly to the editor-in-chief, in appropriate language and reported back to him that it had been well received. 171. The witness met Hüseyin Demirci in one of the training courses on civil defence services, just as he met many other local people. However, he denied the applicant's allegation that Mr Demirci was his adviser. He further stated that he had known Mr Orhan Ceylan as a renowned officer who was now retired after a career of heroic service. But he was not acquainted with him. 172. The witness denied the applicant's allegation that he had left the island two days before the killing of Mr Adalı, namely on 4 July 1996. He stressed that he had left the island in the second week of August 1996 subsequent to the end of his term of office. When asked about the allegations made by Mr Adalı, in his column in 23 March 1996 edition of Yenidüzen, in relation to the St Barnabas incident, the witness contested the allegations and stated that it had been an anti-terrorist operation, for which he had provided a white Renault Toros car. 173. The witness stated that he had not reacted to a television program on Show TV during which allegations had been made by the editor of Yenidüzen to the effect that he had made a threatening call to the newspaper. He explained that it was not possible to react to the allegations without obtaining the authorisation of the General Staff of the Turkish armed forces. 174. As regards an article published in the Afrika newspaper which referred to Mustafa Asilhan as the witness' adviser who had allegedly said that it would have been better had they not written about the involvement of the Civil Defence Organisation, the witness stressed that Mr Asilhan had never been an adviser to him and that the allegations were untrue.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant, Mr Evgen Nevmerzhitsky, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in Kyiv in 1970 and currently resides there. He was formerly the manager of a branch of the Poltava Bank in Kyiv. The applicant was represented by Mr Portyanik, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. 9. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 10. On 28 September 1995 police officers seized 184,761 US dollars (USD) that had been stored by the applicant on the premises of the Poltava Bank in readiness for their sale to a customer, Y.G.L. 11. On 18 October 1995 the Investigative Division of the main department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in Kyiv (“the Investigative Division”) began a criminal investigation into allegations of unlawful currency transactions that had allegedly been committed by the applicant. 12. On 8 April 1997 the Investigative Department initiated criminal proceedings in respect of the involvement of the applicant and other suspects in the case. On the same date an investigator from the division decided that the applicant should be detained as a suspect pending a decision concerning the appropriate preventive measure. He was accordingly placed in custody that day. 13. On 14 April 1997 an investigator from the Investigative Division charged the applicant with, inter alia, engaging in unlawful currency transactions (Article 80 § 2 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code 1960 – hereafter the “UCC”), theft of substantial amounts of currency (Article 86-1 of the UCC) and tax evasion (Article 148-5 § 2 of the UCC). 14. On 8 December 1997 and 2 March 1998 the applicant was additionally charged with abuse of power by an official (Articles 165 § 2 and 166 § 3 of the UCC) and fraud and forgery committed by an official (Articles 172 § 2 and 194 §§ 1 and 3 of the UCC). 15. Between 15 January and 14 April 1998 the applicant lodged applications with the Investigative Department for a medical examination and challenged the appointment of the investigator. On 7 April 1998 the General Prosecution Service of Ukraine instructed the investigator to arrange for the applicant's medical examination. The doctors who examined the applicant recommended that he should receive medical treatment in a facility run by the Ministry of Health due to various diseases that he suffered from, including the skin infections of scabies and eczema. 16. On 13 March 1998 the investigator charged the applicant with offences under Articles 80 § 2, 86-1, 148-5 § 2, 166 § 3, 170 § 1, 172 § 2 and 194 § 3 of the UCC. 17. On 8 September 1998 the investigation into the case was completed and the accused, including the applicant, were allowed to inspect the case-file. On 9 August 1999 the accused finished their inspection. 18. On 9 August 1999 the criminal case-file was sent to the Kyiv Prosecution Service for approval of the indictment. 19. On 13 August 1999 the prosecution service transmitted the case to the Kyiv City Court (the “City Court”). 20. On 27 August 1999 the Moskovsky District Court of Kyiv rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant's complaint against the investigator of the Investigative Department, in which he had claimed that the investigator had acted unlawfully and requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against him for abuse of power. 21. On 1 November 1999 the City Court remitted the case to the prosecution service for an additional investigation (додаткове розслідування). On 5 November 1999 it lodged a separate application (окреме подання) for an order setting aside the City Court's ruling. On 16 December 1999 the Supreme Court of Ukraine granted the application in part. Although it held that the case should be remitted for an additional investigation, it specified that certain matters did not have to be investigated further since the information previously obtained was sufficient. 22. On 5 January 2000 the prosecution service finished a supplementary investigation into the case and the applicant was allowed to inspect the file. 23. On 7 February 2000 the additional investigation was completed and the applicant was allowed to familiarise himself with the material in the case-file. 24. On 22 February 2000 the preliminary investigation was reopened in order to conduct additional investigative acts. 25. On 30 October 2000 the City Court ruled that the investigation into the charges of unlawful currency transactions should be dropped as criminal liability for unlawful currency transactions had been abolished and Article 80 of the UCC repealed. 26. On 19 February 2001 the City Court convicted the applicant of repeated financial fraud, acts in preparation of financial fraud, forgery committed by an official, aggravated forgery and abuse of power. It sentenced him to five years and six months' imprisonment, and ordered the confiscation of all his personal property. It acquitted him of the offences of aiding and abetting the concealment of the proceeds of currency sales, tax evasion and aggravated fictitious trading. On the basis of the Amnesty Law of 11 May 2000, and because the applicant had already been detained for two years, ten months and fifteen days, the City Court decided to exempt him from serving the sentence. None of the parties appealed to the Supreme Court. 27. On 8 April 1997 an investigator of the Investigative Division decided that the applicant should be temporarily detained as a suspect (затриманий в якості підозрюваного) in accordance with Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”). He was accordingly placed in custody that day. 28. On 11 April 1997 the Prosecutor of Kyiv sanctioned a warrant issued by the investigator authorising the applicant's arrest (санкцію на арешт) as a preventive measure pending trial (Article 155 of the CCP). 29. On 12 May 1997 the applicant applied to the Moskovsky District Court of Kyiv for orders to quash the warrant and release him. On 28 May 1997 the District Court rejected the applicant's claims as unsubstantiated. It also held that the applicant's detention was lawful. 30. From 8 April 1997 until 22 February 2000 the applicant was detained in the Temporary Investigative Isolation Unit of the Kyiv Region (SIZO No. 1 of the Kyiv Region). 31. The duration of the investigation and the applicant's detention were extended on successive occasions: to six months on 29 May 1997 by the Prosecutor of Kyiv, to nine months on 1 October 1997 by the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine, to twelve months on 18 December 1997 by the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine and to fifteen months on 28 March 1998 by the Acting Prosecutor General of Ukraine. 32. On 12 April 1998 the investigator informed the applicant that the preventive measure of detention could be replaced by release on bail. The Prosecutor of Kyiv informed the applicant by a letter of 20 July 1998 that bail had been fixed in the sum of 232,716 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH). 33. On 22 July 1998 that amount was deposited in the account of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kyiv by Ukrinbank (the surety and the applicant's former employer). On 19 August 1998 the Department returned the sum and refused to release the applicant on bail. 34. On 30 June 1998 the Acting Prosecutor General of Ukraine extended the period of the investigation and the applicant's detention for another three months (until 30 September 1998), bringing the total period to eighteen months. 35. On 1 November 1999 the City Court refused to change the preventive measure, requiring the applicant to remain in custody. On 16 December 1999 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld that decision. 36. The applicant was detained during the prosecution's further investigation from 1 November 1999 onwards. 37. On 22 February 2000, owing to the expiry of the maximum statutory period of detention, the Kyiv Regional Prosecutor decided to release the applicant on his undertaking not to abscond. The applicant was released on 23 February 2000. 38. The applicant went on hunger strike on 13 April 1998, consuming only water. On 17 April 1998 the applicant's medical condition was examined and, following an acetone analysis of his urine on 20 April 1998, he was subjected to force-feeding as of 23 April 1998. The applicant suspended his hunger strike on 14 July 1998, only to resume it again in October 1998. 39. On 1 December 1999 the doctor of the detention facility issued a statement that the applicant was receiving medical treatment and, because of his continuing hunger strike, was being force-fed. 40. The Government mentioned that between 27 May 1997 and 7 February 2000 the applicant was examined by doctors on sixty-one occasions. However, they made no reference to any medical examinations of the applicant in the period from 5 August 1998 to 10 January 2000 (see paragraph 50 below). 41. On 5 February 1998 the doctor of the detention centre diagnosed the applicant as having allergic dermatitis (алергійний дерматит). 42. On 8 April 1998 the doctor of the detention centre, after examining the applicant, diagnosed him as also suffering from streptococcal impetigo (стрептодермія) and chronic cholecystitis (хронічний холецистит). 43. On 8 May 1998 the forensic medical examination No. 58 carried out by the Kyiv City Medical Examinations Bureau concluded that the applicant suffered from microbic eczema, chronic cholecystitis and neurocirculatory dystonia. It recommended that the applicant undergo specialised medical treatment for eczema as an inpatient. 44. On 2 June 1998 the doctor of the Central Hospital of Kyiv, Dr Glukhenky, found that the applicant had contracted disseminated microbic eczema (розповсюджена мікробна екзема). He also recommended that the applicant undergo medical treatment as an inpatient. 45. On 13 July 1998 the Deputy Head of the Investigative Department requested that the applicant be admitted to the Kyiv Specialist Dermato-Venerological Hospital for further treatment of his skin diseases as from 14 July 1998. 46. On 14 July 1998 the applicant was taken to the hospital and, after his preliminary medical examination there, he was diagnosed as suffering from scabies (чесотка) and pyodermatitis (піодерматит). The hospital recommended that the applicant be returned to SIZO No. 1 for further medical treatment for scabies. 47. On 20 July 1998 the forensic medical examination No. 88 carried out by the Kyiv City Medical Examinations Bureau concluded that the applicant had suffered from disseminated microbic eczema from 8 May to 2 June 1998. It also found that the applicant suffered from scabies and that this disease could be treated in SIZO No. 1 if there were no appropriate conditions for his treatment as an inpatient. On the same date the investigator of the Investigative Division rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant's request for medical treatment as an inpatient. 48. The applicant underwent medical treatment for scabies on 31 July 1998 in the medical unit of the detention centre. 49. The applicant continued his hunger strike between 10 January and 7 February 2000. During this period he was examined by a doctor on eighteen occasions. 50. According to the applicant, his last hunger strike lasted from 5 October 1998 to 23 February 2000. In accordance with the timetable of medical examinations provided by the Government, no medical examinations of the applicant were performed between 5 August 1998 and 10 January 2000 (see paragraph 40 above). 51. Following his release on 23 February 2000, the applicant was admitted to Kyiv City Hospital from 24 February until 17 March 2000. He subsequently continued to receive medical treatment under the general supervision of a psychiatrist. 52. On 2 February 2000 the applicant's sister, on behalf of the applicant, lodged complaints with the Constitutional Court of Ukraine seeking to establish that it was unconstitutional to hold the applicant in custody after the maximum statutory term of detention had expired. She also petitioned the Constitutional Court for a ruling that Article 156 of the CCP, which allowed suspects to be detained while the case was being investigated, was unconstitutional. On 25 February 2000 the Registrar of the Constitutional Court rejected his complaints, as the court had no jurisdiction to consider them.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Nagymaros, Hungary. 9. In 1994 the applicant married Ms C.M., who is a national of both Romania and Hungary. On 16 February 1995 their daughter V. was born. The parents had joint custody in respect of the child, according to Hungarian law. They lived in Nagymaros. 10. In December 1998 they visited the wife’s family in Romania. The applicant returned to Hungary, while C.M. stayed in Romania with V. and promised to return by 30 January 1999. 11. On 4 January 1999 C.M. filed for divorce, custody of V. and maintenance before the Satu Mare District Court in Romania. On 17 January 1999, she informed the applicant by telephone that she had decided to live in Romania and would not allow him to take V. to Hungary, despite him still being her husband and having joint custody of their daughter. 12. In a decision of 8 October 2003, the Satu Mare District Court established the residence of the child with her mother, pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings and required the applicant to pay alimony for his daughter. It also granted the applicant visiting rights to his child. On 19 February 2004 the decision became final. 13. In the meantime, on 20 January 1999 the applicant submitted a request for the return of his daughter to Hungary under Article 3 of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). The request was submitted through the Hungarian Ministry of Justice (“the Hungarian Ministry”) to the Romanian Ministry of Justice (“the Romanian Ministry”). He argued that V. was the victim of international kidnapping and had been retained in Romania unlawfully within the meaning of Article 72 § 1 of the Hungarian Code on Family Law. 14. The Romanian Ministry, acting as the Central Authority responsible for the obligations established by the Hague Convention, instituted proceedings on behalf of the applicant before the Satu Mare District Court. On 8 June 1999 the District Court found no violation of the relevant Articles of the Hague Convention and refused the applicant’s request. It considered that the retention of the child was not unlawful in so far as the applicant did not have exclusive custody rights in respect of his daughter and, thus, Article 3 of the Hague Convention was not applicable. The court considered that, in any case, the return of the child would constitute a great risk for her since she was already integrated into the new environment created by the mother during her stay in Romania. 15. On 5 October 1999 the Hungarian Nagymaros Guardianship Authority, at the applicant’s request, declared that C.M. had not instituted the correct administrative proceedings, as required by the Hungarian Code on Family Law, with respect to their daughter’s lawful removal to, and retention in Romania. It proposed that the child’s residence be established with her father. 16. On 22 October 1999 the Satu Mare County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 8 June 1999. It recalled that the applicant did not have exclusive custody rights with respect to his daughter. It further considered that the return of the child would deprive the mother of the exercise of her parental rights. Lastly, the county court stated that, as long as the marriage of the parents was still valid, they should have the custody matters resolved by a competent court. 17. The Romanian Ministry appealed on points of law against this decision, alleging that the county court had incorrectly interpreted the applicable law and the facts of the case. They recalled that, according to the Hague Convention, the court should have applied Hungarian law, by which the retention of the child across the border by her mother without the father’s consent was illegal. 18. On 2 February 2000 the Oradea Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It recalled that under Hungarian law the parents exercised parental rights jointly. However, due to the concrete family situation, it was normal that the parent living abroad would have to make more effort in order to exercise these rights. Furthermore, it considered that the child had already become integrated into the new environment. It held therefore that it was in the best interests of the child that she remain with her mother. 19. In parallel, on 28 April 1999 the applicant filed for the custody of V. before the Vác District Court in Hungary. On 17 May 1999 the applicant requested the court to proceed with the case as a matter of urgency and to hear witnesses. 20. On 21 May 1999 the District Court, via the Ministry of Justice, notified the defendant in Romania of the action. 21. On 30 August 1999 the applicant requested, by way of an interim measure, that V. be temporarily placed in his care and that the mother’s custody rights be terminated. 22. On 8 September 1999 the District Court held a hearing, dismissed the applicant’s request for interim measures and suspended the case until the proceedings on the Hague Convention issues had been finalised. The District Court noted that the divorce proceedings before the Romanian Satu Mare District Court had also been suspended on an earlier date for the same reason. The applicant appealed against this decision on 16 September 1999. 23. On 21 September 1999 the Pest County Public Prosecutor’s Office interceded in the proceedings for the applicant and endorsed his appeal of 16 September filed against the decision of the Vác District Court. On 30 September 1999 both the applicant’s and the public prosecutor’s appeals were served on the defendant, who received them on 28 December 1999. 24. On 29 October 1999 the applicant requested the District Court to grant him, by way of an interim measure, custody of the child, to terminate the mother’s parental rights and to proceed with the case urgently. 25. On 31 January 2000 the applicant renewed his request for custody of the child. He also filed a motion for bias against the District Court and the presiding judges. He renewed this motion on 21 February 2000. 26. On 29 February 2000 the Pest County Regional Court upheld the dismissal of the applicant’s request for interim measures but instructed the District Court to resume its proceedings. This decision, notified via the Hungarian Ministry, reached the defendant on 29 May 2000. 27. On 19 May 2000 the District Court ordered that a study be made in the homes of both parties in order to ascertain their living conditions. A study was carried out in the applicant’s home on 8 June 2000. The order was served on the defendant on 10 July 2000 and the relevant documents forwarded on 23 January 2001 to the Ministry of Justice with a view to carrying out a similar study in the defendant’s home in Romania. 28. The applicant’s repeated motions for bias were dismissed on 27 September, 26 and 30 October and 11 December 2000. 29. On 5 January 2001 the District Court joined to the proceedings the applicant’s further claim for divorce which had been filed on 3 July 2000. The defendant was notified of this step on 1 March 2001. 30. On 21 and 30 January 2001 respectively, the applicant submitted further documents and requested the court to summon other witnesses. 31. The applicant’s renewed request of 31 January 2001 for an interim measure was dismissed by the District Court on 15 February 2001. 32. On 6 June 2001 the District Court held a hearing and heard four witnesses. The defendant failed to appear. The court therefore requested her to submit her observations on the minutes of the hearing within 15 days and ordered her to submit a written response to the applicant’s claim for custody of the child. 33. On 8 June 2001 a lawyer practising in Hungary informed the court that the defendant had authorised him to represent her in the case. On 2 July 2001 the defendant submitted her counter-claim and motions for evidence. 34. On 5 July and 30 October 2001 the Hungarian Ministry made an enquiry with its Romanian counterpart as to whether the envisaged study of the defendant’s home could be carried out. In their reply of 10 December 2001, the Romanian Ministry stated that the relevant documents had been lost. 35. A hearing was held on 7 November 2001 at which the District Court heard a witness. The defendant’s representative informed the court that the request to carry out a study of the defendant’s living conditions had been served on the defendant by mistake. Consequently, the District Court asked the Hungarian Ministry to send the request again to the Satu Mare District Court. 36. On 8 November 2001 the District Court refused to regulate the applicant’s access rights by way of an interim measure. 37. On 22 and 29 November 2001 the District Court invited the applicant to update the addresses of two of his witnesses who could not be summoned. On the previous day the applicant had appealed against the order of 8 November 2001. 38. On 19 December 2001 the District Court held a hearing and heard witnesses. It also set a statutory three-month time-limit for the parties to reconsider or confirm the continuation of the divorce proceedings. 39. Meanwhile, on 14 November 2001 the witness requested by the Vác District Court was heard by the Satu Mare District Court. The minutes were forwarded to the Hungarian Ministry and their translation was completed on 3 December 2001 and 27 February 2002, respectively. 40. On the applicant’s appeal, the Pest County Regional Court quashed the order of 8 November 2001 and requested the District Court to take a new decision. 41. After the Hungarian Ministry had replaced the lost documents, on 13 February 2002 the Romanian Satu Mare District Court carried out the requested home study. The translation of the resultant documents reached the Hungarian Vác District Court on 21 May 2002. 42. Meanwhile, on 15 February 2002 the District Court regulated the applicant’s access rights. This order was amended by the Regional Court on 2 April 2002. 43. On 26 March 2002 the Pest County Regional Court rejected the applicant’s renewed motion for bias against the Vác District Court and fined him 15,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) for having repeatedly challenged judges without substantiating the requests. 44. On 27 May 2002 the District Court appointed an expert in child psychology. The expert’s examination of V., scheduled for 2 July 2002, was cancelled as the defendant was unwilling to attend because she was unable to meet the travel costs. 45. On 16 July 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for an interim measure of 4 July 2002 to order that V. spend her summer vacation in Hungary. 46. The defendant failed to appear with the child at examinations scheduled for 2 July and 11 November 2002, 13 January and 26 February 2003. On 4 December 2002 the District Court imposed a fine of HUF 20,000 on the defendant. On 22 January 2003 the court warned the defendant that she was obliged to appear at the examinations. At a later date, the court amended the instructions for the expert and ordered her to assess who was the most suitable parent to raise the child. The defendant was examined on 14 May 2003. 47. On 26 June 2003 the expert submitted her opinion, finding the mother more suitable to raise V. 48. On 4 July 2003 the District Court, as an interim measure, regulated the applicant’s access rights for the summer of 2003. 49. The District Court held hearings on 12 September and 29 October 2003. In a judgment delivered on the latter date, the court declared the couple’s divorce and divided the matrimonial property. It also granted the defendant custody of V. and ordered the applicant to pay her maintenance of HUF 10,000 per month. 50. On 5 January 2004 the applicant appealed against the judgment. He withdrew the appeal 15 days later. Consequently, on 21 January 2004 the judgment became final.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. In October 1984 eleven artists founded the “Zichy Mihály” Art Gallery. In December 1984 the Hungarian Art’s Fund, pursuant to Government Decree No. 83/1982, approved the gallery’s foundation as a “creative art community”. 5. In 1989 Parliament passed the Associations Act, requiring the registration of associations. 6. As of 1 October 1992, due to a modification in the Government Decree, the supervision of the applicant was to be exercised by the Ministry of Culture and Education. 7. On 29 April 1993 the Constitutional Court declared the relevant parts of the Government Decree unconstitutional and annulled them. Consequently, the registration rules of the Associations Act became applicable to the applicant as well. 8. On 29 June 1995 the applicant requested that its legal personality be acknowledged by the Budapest Regional Court. The applicant refused to submit a request for registration, reasoning that it was the Ministry’s duty to do so. 9. On 23 April 1996 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request. The Regional Court held that the request of the applicant, whose legal personality had ceased pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s decision, had not complied with the substantive and formal requirements set out in the Associations Act. On 14 October 1996 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, upheld the Regional Court’s decision. 10. On 14 October 1997 the Supreme Court, in review proceedings, quashed these decisions and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The Supreme Court held that the applicant’s legal personality had not ceased because of the Constitutional Court’s decision. 11. In the resumed proceedings, on 14 January 1998 the Budapest Public Prosecutor’s Office proposed that the Regional Court require the applicant to adjust its statute to the requirements of the Associations Act. On 23 February 1999 the Budapest Regional Court ordered the applicant’s registration. 12. On 8 March 2000 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court. 13. On 12 April 2000 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to submit supplementary documents. The applicant failed to comply with this order. 14. On 10 July 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request. On 31 July 2000 the applicant appealed. 15. On 10 April 2001 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed the order and remitted the case to the Regional Court. 16. On 28 January 2002 the Budapest Regional Court registered the applicant association.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine. 9. On 1 March 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of crimes of swindling and taken to the Kyivsky District Police Station (Київський районний відділ міліції міста Харкова). 10. According to the applicant, he was handcuffed in the police station and police officers demanded that he confess. When he refused to do so, he was severely beaten several times. After each beating he was told that if he did not confess he would be subjected to further beatings. During the last beating one of the police officers, G., hit the applicant on the left ear, causing swelling and partial deafness. After the beatings, the police officers warned the applicant to “think it over” during the night, otherwise he would be beaten again the next day. 11. The applicant maintained that he had had many scratches and bruises on his body. On 2 March 2000, when the police officers wanted to transfer him to a temporary detention centre (ізолятор тимчасового утримання), the centre refused to admit him on account of his numerous injuries. 12. On 3 March 2000 the applicant was escorted to hospital where he was examined. 13. The same day the applicant was transferred to a temporary detention centre. 14. On 4 March 2000 the applicant was charged, but released on bail on condition that he did not abscond, by a decision of the Kyivsky District Prosecutor. 15. From 7 March to 5 April 2000 the applicant underwent medical examinations at the forensic medical examination department (відділ судово-медичної експертизи). The forensic expert recorded various injuries to the applicant’s body. The injuries included a damaged left ear, and bruises on the trunk, face, left arm and left leg (qualified as minor injuries by the Government). The expert also indicated the approximate dates on which the applicant had sustained these injuries, some 5 to 7 days before 7 March 2000. Those dates coincided with the applicant’s detention in the Kyivsky District Police Station. 16. On 13 April 2000 the applicant requested the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for torture. The request was transferred to the Kyivsky District Prosecutor’s Office for consideration. 17. On 24 April and 18 May 2000, the applicant requested the Kyivsky District Prosecutor’s Office to inform him about the outcome of his complaint. 18. On 24 April 2000, the deputy prosecutor of the Kyiv District of Kharkiv issued a decree refusing to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no evidence that an offence had been committed. In his decree, the deputy prosecutor stated that criminal proceedings had been initiated against the applicant on 10 February 2000. The applicant confessed voluntarily to having committed the crimes of which he was charged when he learned that his accomplices had also confessed. Furthermore, police officers had been questioned about the applicant’s allegations and had refuted the accusations against them. The deputy prosecutor concluded: “(...) despite the fact that the forensic medical expert opinion No. 747/c of 5 April 2000 [established that the applicant suffered] minor bodily injuries giving rise to a short-term disability, no evidence has been obtained that those injuries were inflicted by officers of the Kyivsky District Police Station of Kharkiv. The [applicant’s] arguments set out in his request must be considered to have been invented by him. He was fully aware that the investigation gave rise to sufficient proof that he had committed the crimes of which he was accused. He is now trying to avoid the punishment he deserves”. 19. On 3 June 2000 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Kyivsky District Court and to the City Prosecutor’s Office. (According to the Government, it was on 3 July 2000 that the applicant complained to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, and then on 14 September 2000 to the court, paragraph 21 below.) 20. On 20 July 2000 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that it had rejected his request to quash the decree of 24 April 2000. 21. On 14 September 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kyivsky District Court of Kharkiv challenging the decree of 24 April 2000. 22. On 19 October 2000 the Kyivsky District Court quashed the decree of 24 April 2000 and ordered that criminal proceedings be opened against the accused police officers under Article 166 § 2 of the Criminal Code (excess of power). The court stated that the prosecutor had failed to investigate the cause of the applicant’s injuries and that the prosecutor’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in question had been unreasonable. 23. The criminal case was sent to the Kyivsky District Prosecutor’s Office. On 10 November 2000 this Office requested the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office to lodge a supervisory review appeal with the Presidium of the Kharkiv Regional Court against the Kyivsky District Court’s decision of 19 October 2000. The applicant was informed of this on 26 January 2001. 24. On 25 April 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office rejected the request, finding no grounds for such a review, and returned the case file to the District Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant was informed of this development by letter of 27 April 2001. 25. Criminal proceedings were initiated on 28 April 2001 by the Kyivsky District Prosecutor, but terminated by decree on 3 September 2001 for want of evidence that any crime had been committed. Nevertheless, according to the Government, between May and November 2001 investigators interviewed several witnesses, including the police officers and the applicant’s relatives. 26. Following the applicant’s complaint, on 29 October 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decree of the Kyivsky District Prosecutor and sent the case to the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office. The latter in turn transferred the case on 7 November 2001 to the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office for a further preliminary investigation. 27. On 13 November 2001 the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office began the investigation. 28. In November and December 2001 several other witnesses were questioned and confrontations were organised. 29. On 20 November 2001 a forensic medical examination was ordered within the framework of the investigation. 30. On 4 December 2001 the expert examination concluded that the applicant had suffered bodily harm of medium severity which could have occurred in the circumstances alleged by the applicant. 31. On 12 December 2001 a supplementary forensic examination was ordered as the first was deemed incomplete. 32. According to the Government, on 25 February 2002 the second expert opinion established that the applicant had sustained minor bodily harm prior to his detention in the Kyivsky District Police Station. 33. At the request of the applicant’s lawyer, one of the medical experts was interviewed in the presence of the lawyer on 21 March 2002. The same day the lawyer requested an additional medical examination since, in his view, the second report lacked any scientific basis and was contradicted by the other evidence in the case. Although the prosecutor received the request, the lawyer never had a reply. 34. On 28 March 2002, on conclusion of the additional investigation, the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office issued a decree terminating the criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no evidence that a crime had been committed. (The applicant was informed of this on 16 April 2002.) The prosecutor stated, inter alia, that the police officers who had been questioned had denied the accusations against them and had explained the applicant’s allegations with reference to the criminal proceedings brought against him. The prosecutor further stated that the testimonies of T. and O., confirming the applicant’s allegations, had to be disregarded since they were the applicant’s co-accused. The prosecutor also maintained that the medical examination had concluded that the applicant’s injuries could have been caused before he was detained at the police station. 35. On 16 April and 31 May 2002 the applicant and his lawyer requested the district prosecutor to provide them with the case file. By letter of 10 June 2002, the prosecutor replied that the materials in the case file had been sent to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office for examination. 36. Following the filing of several complaints by the applicant and his lawyer with the District, Regional and General Prosecutor’s Office, the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant on 9 October 2002 that the criminal case, in so far as it concerned the alleged excess of power by police officers, had been closed, but that the question of the infliction of minor bodily harm had been remitted for further investigation. 37. That same day, 9 October 2002, the Kharkiv City prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 28 March 2002 and remitted the case to the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office, which on 23 August 2002 recommenced the investigation. 38. Because of the contradictory findings of the previous forensic medical examinations, an additional examination was entrusted to the Central Office of Forensic Medical Examination in Kyiv. 39. On 2 June 2003 the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office received an expert opinion dated 3 February 2003 in which it was stated that the applicant had sustained bodily injury of medium severity that could have been inflicted in the circumstances alleged by the applicant. 40. On 25 June 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office instructed the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office to complete the investigation as soon as possible. 41. On 9 July 2003 the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office issued a decree terminating the criminal proceedings on the ground that the actions of the law-enforcement officers had not given rise to any criminal offence. It reclassified the criminal offence as the infliction of bodily injury of medium severity by unknown person(s) and remitted the criminal case for investigation to the Kyivsky District Police Department. 42. The applicant appealed against this decree to the Zhovtnevy District Court. 43. On 15 November 2003 the criminal investigation was stayed and it was decided to continue the operative search as the offender had not yet been identified. 44. On 31 December 2003 Zhovtnevy District Court quashed the decree of 9 July 2003 and remitted the case for an additional investigation. The court noted, in particular, that the investigating authorities had failed to take all necessary measures to identify and question independent witnesses, given that the applicant and the law-enforcement officers had made contradictory statements. 45. On 30 March 2004 the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office passed a resolution discontinuing the criminal investigation against the police officers indicated by the applicant, and decided that the fact of the infliction of bodily harm of medium severity required further investigation. 46. The investigation is still pending because the offender has not yet been found.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest. 5. On 29 September 1995 the applicant brought an action against his former employer, the E. Rt, seeking the annulment of the termination of his employment and claiming payment of outstanding night-shift allowances. On 5 March 1996 the applicant modified his action and also requested that outstanding wages be paid to him. 6. On 21 May, 9 August and 6 September 1996, the Budapest Labour Court held hearings and, on 15 November 1996, it dismissed the applicant’s claims. On 2 January 1997 the applicant appealed. On 16 August 1997 he finalised his appeal. 7. On 5 November 1997 the Budapest Regional Court upheld, as confirmed by the Supreme Court’s review bench on 9 December 1998, the first-instance decision in so far as it concerned the termination of the applicant’s employment. As regards the issue of the outstanding night-shift allowances, the Regional Court quashed the Labour Court’s decision and remitted the case to it. 8. On 7 April 1999 the applicant requested that the final part of the proceedings be re-opened. He also submitted another petition for review against the final decision, which was rejected ex officio by the Supreme Court on 31 May 1999. 9. In the proceedings concerning the applicant’s request for a re-opening, the Labour Court held hearings on 1 October, 5 November and 17 December 1999. Subsequently, all of the judges of the Labour Court declared bias and requested permission to withdraw from the case. On 9 May 2000 the Supreme Court appointed the Pest County Labour Court to hear the case. 10. In the resumed proceedings for outstanding wages, on 4 October 2000 the Pest County Labour Court heard the parties, and on 10 October 2000 it ordered a judicial auditing expertise. The expert’s appointment was, however, cancelled on 4 December 2000. On 18 May, 22 June and 14 September 2001 the Labour Court held hearings. 11. On the applicant’s motion, on 19 November 2001 the judges of the Pest County Labour Court declared themselves biased. On 9 January 2002 the Supreme Court appointed the Székesfehérvár Labour Court to proceed with the applicant’s request for a re-opening. On 8 May 2002 the Labour Court rejected, as confirmed by the Fejér County Regional Court on 15 July 2002, the applicant’s request for the re-opening. 12. On 27 June 2002 the Supreme Court appointed the Székesfehérvár Labour Court to examine the applicant’s claim for outstanding wages in the resumed proceedings. On 21 October 2002 and 5 February 2003, the Labour Court held hearings. 13. On 19 May 2003 the Labour Court determined part of the applicant’s claims. The applicant’s appeal against this partial decision was dismissed by the Fejér County Regional Court on 6 April 2004. The applicant petitioned the Supreme Court for a review. These proceedings are still pending. 14. On 29 October 2004 the Székesfehérvár Labour Court suspended the proceedings concerning the remainder of the applicant’s claims. On 5 January 2005 the Fejér County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order suspending the case.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 9. The applicant and her family (her husband and two children, born in 1982 and 1987) moved into a dormitory in Volgograd in 1985. They occupied two rooms in the dormitory, with shared kitchen, shower and toilet facilities. They were registered as living in the dormitory permanently, which was their sole residence. In 1993 the ownership of the dormitory was transferred to a company called “VNIITMASH”. 10. In 1995 the applicant, along with other residents, was ordered by the District Prosecutor of the Sovetskiy district of Volgograd to vacate the premises because the building required urgent structural renovation. The applicant was provided with temporary housing in another dormitory in Volgograd, although smaller and of inferior quality. In August 1995 the applicant was forcibly evicted from the building and her belongings were transferred. 11. The applicant, along with other residents, brought an action against VNIITMASH and the administration of the Sovetskiy district for provision of permanent housing and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. They alleged that though the status of the building was a dormitory, their contracts were not for dormitory-type accommodation, but for proper flats. On 24 April 1996 the Volgograd Regional Court confirmed in the final instance the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court to reject the applicants’ claim. VNIITMASH undertook to allow the applicants to return to the dormitory after the renovation, which was scheduled to be completed in September 1996. 12. The building was not renovated on time, and the applicant applied to the court again. The district administration accepted her claims. The Sovetskiy District Court by its judgment of 22 June 1999 ordered the administration to provide the applicant with “comfortable” (благоустроенное) housing. Neither of the parties appealed, and the judgment entered into force and was forwarded to the bailiff in July 1999. 13. On 8 September 1999 the renovation in the original building was completed and the ownership of it was transferred to the district administration, with the status of a dormitory. 14. On 24 September 1999 the administration of the Sovetskiy district issued a voucher (ордер) to the applicant’s family for two rooms of 34 square metres in the newly renovated dormitory building. It appears that the bailiff closed the enforcement procedures on 11 October 1999. 15. The applicant refused to accept the accommodation offered, as she believed that the housing in the dormitory did not correspond to the definition of “comfortable”, as ordered by the court on 22 June 1999. She also alleged that the conditions had become worse since the renovation. In particular, the applicant and her family would only be able to register as temporary occupants of the building and the rooms offered to them were separated from each other and were connected by a corridor shared with other rooms. Further, they were required to share the toilet and kitchen facilities with a larger number of families, and the quality of the building remained very poor, even after the renovation. 16. On her complaint, the bailiff reopened the enforcement procedures and on 23 February 2000 prohibited the issuing of housing vouchers by the district administration. 17. On 27 April 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court, on the administration’s complaint, quashed the bailiff’s order of 23 February 2000. On 28 June 2000 the Volgograd Regional Court confirmed this decision. The courts found that the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 22 June 1999 had been executed by the administration which had provided her with “comfortable” housing in the dormitory, and the applicant’s refusal to accept it did not warrant continuation of enforcement procedures. 18. On 18 July 2000 the administration offered three rooms in the dormitory to the applicant, totalling 53,5 square metres. The applicant and her family did not accept the places in the dormitory and refused to move in. 19. On 6 June 2000 the rapporteur, under Rule 49 § 1 of the Rules of Court, asked the Russian Government the following questions: “1. What is the current situation with respect to enforcement of the decision of the Sovetskiy District Court of Volgograd of 22 June 1999? 20. The Government responded on 18 September 2000. They informed the Court that on 17 July 2000 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court, acting by way of supervisory review upon a request (протест) lodged by its president, had quashed the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 22 June 1999 and returned the case for a new consideration at first instance. 21. The applicant later informed the Court that she had not been aware of the session of the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court of 17 July 2000, as the information notice had been sent to her only on 13 July when she was out of town. The representatives of the administration and the District Prosecutor’s Office had attended the hearing and presented their arguments. 22. On 26 July 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court again considered the case and rejected the applicant’s claim, stating that she was only entitled to housing in the renewed dormitory. The decision was confirmed on 30 August 2000 by the Volgograd Regional Court. On 27 September 2000 the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings because the court decision of 22 June 1999 had been quashed. 23. The applicant on several occasions attempted to challenge the court decision by way of supervisory review, but was unsuccessful. 24. On 12 April 2001 the district administration confirmed the offer of three rooms in the dormitory to the applicant, but she did not accept it. 25. On 5 October 2001 the complaint was communicated to the Russian Government. 26. On 4 February 2002 a request for supervisory review was lodged with the Supreme Court by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court. On 4 March 2002 the Supreme Court, acting by way of supervisory review, quashed the following judicial decisions: the decision of the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court of 17 July 2000, the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 26 July 2000, the decision of the Volgograd Regional Court of 30 August 2000. It has thus restored the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 22 June 1999. 27. On 12 April 2002 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court, acting by way of supervisory review upon a request by the President of the Regional Court, again quashed the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 22 June 1999 and returned the case for a new consideration. The new proceedings are still pending.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant, Mr Ivan Trofimovich Varanitsa, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1934 and currently resides in Krasnoarmeysk, in the Donetsk Region. 6. On 19 January 2000 the Krasnoarmeysk City Court ordered the State mine “Rodinskaya” (the “Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 2,961.35[1] in compensation for salary arrears. On the same date the court delivered writs of execution to the applicant. The judgment became final on 31 January 2000. 7. On 14 February 2000 the Krasnoarmeysk City Bailiffs initiated the enforcement of the judgment of 19 January 2000. The enforcement was suspended on the same date due to the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the Mine pending before the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration. 8. On 6 June 2000 the Krasnoarmeysk City Bailiffs reinitiated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case. 9. On 10 April 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration declared the Mine bankrupt. On 19 June 2001 this decision was quashed by the same court. 10. On 18, 20 and 25 March 2002 the Krasnoarmeysk City Deparment of Justice, the Department of Justice for the Donetsk Region, informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed due to the Mine’s lack of funds. 11. On 9 April 2002 the Krasnoarmeysk City Department of Justice informed the applicant that the Mine had been receiving funds from the State budget in order to pay salary arrears. It also informed the applicant that the Mine’s property could not be attached and that the Execution Service was presently executing earlier writs issued against the Mine in 1998. 12. On 21 August 2002 the applicant was paid UAH 58.26.[2] 13. On 23 August 2002 the applicant received UAH 25.52[3]. The remainder of the unpaid debt was therefore UAH 2,877.57[4]. 14. In August 2003 the mine paid the remainder of the debt to the applicant, which was by then UAH 2,961.35[5]. 15. On 11 August 2003 the Krasnoarmeysk City Department of Justice terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full execution of the judgment of 19 January 2000. 16. On 8 October 2003 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment given in his favour had been enforced in full. However, he still requested compensation for moral damage for the State’s failure to enforce the judgment for three years and eight months.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

7. The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently detained in Corradino Prison (Malta). 8. In November 1995 the applicant was arrested and charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs. On 15 May 1996, while he was in pre-trial detention, a fresh charge of complicity in attempted wilful homicide was brought against him. The applicant was accused of having tried, by means of an instruction issued to third parties, to kill Mr Richard Cachia Caruana, the personal assistant to the Prime Minister, on account of Mr Caruana's role in the separate proceedings on the charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The events in issue allegedly occurred before and on 18 December 1994. Expert forensic reports were submitted in January and February 1995. 9. The applicant was subsequently placed in detention on remand in connection with this new criminal charge also. 10. From the date of the applicant's arraignment (15 May 1996) until 13 August 1996, twenty-three hearings took place before the Court of Magistrates, acting as a court of criminal inquiry. A number of police officers, experts and witnesses, including Mr Joseph Fenech, an accomplice who had made a confession and had been granted a pardon, were cross ‑ examined by the parties. A number of objections were raised by the prosecution and the defence about the questions put by the other party. The court issued a ban on the publication of reports and articles about the proceedings before it. 11. On 13 August 1996 the Court of Magistrates appointed a graphologist and concluded that there were sufficient grounds for the filing of a bill of indictment against the applicant. 12. However, on 16 September 1996 the Attorney General asked the Court of Magistrates to re-open the proceedings in order to hear four witnesses, namely two other accomplices of the applicant, a doctor who had been on duty on the day the victim was admitted to hospital, and the graphologist appointed on 13 August 1996. On 30 September 1996 the court heard the first three witnesses. The two accomplices refused to give evidence in order not to incriminate themselves. The court revoked the appointment of the expert and asked the registrar to provide it with a new list of experts. 13. On 1 November 1996 the Attorney General again asked the court to re‑open the proceedings and to explain the reasons for revoking the appointment of the expert; to identify handwriting experts, including foreign ones; and to hear all the evidence the police could adduce. 14. On 13 November 1996 the Court of Magistrates appointed a new graphologist, Mr Manfred Hecker. 15. On 12 December 1996 the Attorney General requested once again that the inquiry be re-opened. He asked that Mr Hecker and Mr Fenech be heard, the latter being requested to give explanations about the record of his interrogation by the police. Moreover, he asked that some documents previously exhibited be listed in detail, while other documents not already exhibited should be produced by the registrar. A hearing, during which Mr Fenech was examined, took place on 8 January 1997. 16. On 28 February 1997 the Attorney General requested that the inquiry be re-opened for the following matters: to correct a mistake in the records; to hear Mr Hecker; to produce various newspapers; to complete the appointment of another expert and have him produce some photographs; and to hear two new witnesses. 17. On 11 March 1997, after the examination of five witnesses, the hearing was adjourned as Mr Hecker was not in Malta. He gave evidence on 24 March 1997. 18. On 25 March 1997 the registrar informed the court that the evidence produced on 11 March 1997 had not been properly recorded and that the witnesses heard during that sitting should be summoned again. 19. On 30 April 1997 the Attorney General requested the re-opening of the inquiry in order to hear Mr Hecker and other witnesses, as well as the witnesses examined on 11 March 1997. With the exception of Mrs Lilian Zahra, who was abroad, the witnesses concerned were examined by the prosecution on 21 May 1997. Counsel for the defence, who was attending another trial, was not present and reserved his right to cross‑examine the witnesses. At the Attorney General's request, on 30 July 1997 Mrs Zahra was examined. At the end of the sitting, the court returned the documents relating to the proceedings to the Attorney General. 20. The bill of indictment against the applicant for the charge of complicity in attempted wilful homicide was filed on 6 August 1997. 21. On 7 August 1997 the applicant was provisionally released on bail in relation to the charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. However, the applicant could not leave the prison as he was still required to remain in pre‑trial detention on the charge of complicity in attempted murder. 22. In two separate notes of 1 September 1997 the applicant filed several preliminary pleas, challenging the validity of the bill of indictment and the admissibility of a number of documents and prosecution witnesses. The applicant also requested that 146 witnesses be heard on his behalf. 23. On 5 September 1997 the Attorney General contested the admissibility of certain documents and witnesses referred to by the defence. 24. A number of hearings on the preliminary pleas took place before the Criminal Court. In particular, the applicant's case was discussed on 22 and 27 October 1997. On 30 October 1997, the case was adjourned until the following day because counsel for the applicant failed to appear. The case was further discussed on 31 October and 1 December 1997, then postponed until 15 December 1997, on which date the applicant informed the court that his counsel had fallen ill. The case was adjourned first until 7 January, then until 6 February 1998. On that date and on 13 February 1998 the Criminal Court heard oral submissions from the parties. 25. The following hearing, initially scheduled for 2 March 1998, was postponed until 30 April 1998 on the ground that the court needed more time to deliberate. On 30 April 1998 the Criminal Court delivered its judgment on all the preliminary pleas. Both the defence and the prosecution declared that they intended to appeal. The case was adjourned pending the decision on the parties' appeals. 26. On 6 May 1998 the applicant appealed against the Criminal Court's judgment of 30 April 1998. The prosecution did not appeal. 27. On 9 August 1999 the Court of Criminal Appeal set the appeal down for hearing on 7 October 1999. The hearing was then adjourned until 25 October 1999 on the ground that one of the sitting judges was ill. On 25 October 1999 the parties made their oral submissions. The next hearing, initially scheduled for 4 November 1999, was postponed first until 9 November 1999, then until 25 November, and finally until 11 January 2000 at the request of the defence, on the ground that the accused had appeared in court unassisted. The Court of Criminal Appeal heard further oral submissions by the parties on 11 January and 7, 9 and 20 March 2000. 28. On 3 May 2000 the Court of Criminal Appeal partly quashed the Criminal Court's judgment of 30 April 1998. 29. The case concerning the charge of complicity in attempted wilful homicide was resumed before the Criminal Court. A hearing was scheduled for 26 May 2000 in order to agree on a date for the trial. However, the proceedings were adjourned at the defence's request. 30. On 2 June 2000 one of the applicant's counsel withdrew from the defence team. The Criminal Court observed that all that needed to be done was to appoint a date for the trial by jury. However, the applicant's remaining lawyer requested an adjournment in order to check his other professional commitments and to consult with his client. On 4 and 28 July 2000 the proceedings were postponed on the ground that the applicant's counsel was ill. 31. On 31 July 2000 the defence challenged the President of the Criminal Court – Mr Justice Vincent Degaetano – on the ground that he had participated in the trial of Mr Ian Farrugia, one of the applicant's co‑accused. The parties made oral submissions on this plea, and the court ordered the applicant to submit, before 31 August 2000, a note indicating the legal provisions on which he was relying and the decisions taken by the judge in question during the trial of Mr Farrugia. The court proposed to adjourn the case until 11 September 2000, on which date a decision on the challenge should have been taken. However, the applicant's counsel objected that he would be away from Malta during the whole month of September. The proceedings were therefore postponed until 2 October 2000, on which date the Criminal Court rejected the challenge. 32. The applicant declared his intention to appeal. Observing that there was no right to appeal against its ruling, the Criminal Court provisionally fixed the date of the trial by jury for 2 May 2001. The applicant's counsel observed that in view of the declaration made by the defence, the date of the trial should not have been fixed and the proceedings should rather have been adjourned sine die. 33. On 5 October 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision of 2 October 2000. 34. The hearing, initially scheduled for 11 January 2001, was held on 27 December 2000, on which date the Court of Criminal Appeal adjourned the proceedings until 23 January 2001 in view of the absence of the applicant's counsel. The latter subsequently informed the court that he had not been notified of the new date of the hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeal also observed that the Attorney General had not submitted a reply in writing to the applicant's appeal. The Government, with whom the applicant disagreed, emphasised that submissions were normally made orally and that the Attorney General was in no way obliged to file a written reply. 35. On 23 January 2001 the accused, who had fallen ill, did not appear. In the presence of his legal counsel, the court heard evidence from a doctor as to the applicant's state of health. A medical certificate was exhibited. 36. By decision of 25 January 2001 the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. It observed that the accused's allegations were based only on suppositions and unproven gratuitous assertions which were devoid of legal value. 37. On 4 April 2001 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment and to a fine of 30,000 Maltese liras (approximately 72 273 Euros) in respect of the charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He then started to serve his sentence for that offence. The earliest date of the applicant's release was fixed at 19 November 2006. This calculation was made by deducting from the final sentence the period that the accused had spent in pre-trail detention. 38. After having heard in camera the views of the defence and the prosecution, on 16 April 2001 the Criminal Court decided to adjourn the trial by jury on the charge of complicity in attempted murder until 5 November 2001. It considered, in particular, that it was not wise to commence the new trial at a date too close to the termination of the other proceedings against the same accused. The witnesses to be heard on behalf of the prosecution were summoned to appear on 5 November 2001. 39. However, on 22 October 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings before the First Hall of the Civil Court exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, relying on a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta. He submitted, in particular, that he could not be judged by the same magistrate – Mr Justice Degaetano – who had participated in his previous trial for trafficking in dangerous drugs and in the trial of two persons accused of complicity in the offence with which he was charged. He also complained about the extensive media coverage of his trial and about the negative opinions expressed about him and his innocence by the Prime Minister, by the Attorney General and by certain police officers. 40. On 25 October 2001 the applicant requested the Criminal Court to stay the proceedings pending the decision on his constitutional application. The Attorney General replied that that request should be rejected as constituting an abuse of process. 41. In an order of 1 November 2001 the Criminal Court noted that the date of the jury trial had been known to the applicant by 16 April 2001. However, it was only two weeks before the trial was scheduled to commence that the accused had filed his constitutional application. The Criminal Court noted, moreover, that the fact that the constitutional application was pending did not stricto jure oblige it to adjourn the trial. However, if the trial were to be continued, the Civil Court and, in the event of an appeal, the Constitutional Court might have felt in some way pressed to give a ruling on the applicant's complaint in an unreasonably short time (that is, before the end of the trial). Such a situation should, if possible, be avoided and it would have been unnecessarily costly to have the trial by jury held more than once. The Criminal Court therefore decided to adjourn the hearing until 11 February 2002. Further sittings were held before the Criminal Court on 10 June and 4 November 2002 and on 7 January and 1 April 2003; they were all adjourned pending the outcome of the applicant's constitutional application. The next hearing was fixed for 7 July 2003. 42. The date of the first hearing before the First Hall of the Civil Court was fixed for 30 October 2001, on which date the applicant produced several documents. The proceedings were adjourned in order to examine those documents. In a note of 21 November 2001 the applicant stated that one of his counsels had been required to go abroad on a university assignment and would not be present at the hearing on 23 November 2001. The Civil Court reserved its decision on this matter. 43. On 23 November 2001 the applicant appeared, assisted by his other counsel. He declared that he needed to produce in evidence copies of articles which had appeared in local newspapers. The case was adjourned until 9 January 2002, on which date the court requested further information from the applicant. The hearing of 1 February 2002 was postponed at the Attorney General's request. On 15 February 2002 the court adjourned the case in order that the applicant could conduct inquiries to verify the facts concerning a video recording exhibited by him. 44. In a note of 1 March 2002 the applicant pointed out that the recording in issue did not concern a political debate, as he had initially stated, but a press conference. On 15 March 2002 he exhibited an audio recording of the political debate in question and declared that he had no further evidence to produce. The Attorney General requested the authentication of the document exhibited. 45. On 26 April 2002 a witness on behalf of the applicant appeared in order to authenticate the relevant documents. The case was adjourned first until 31 May 2002, then until 5 July 2002 for final oral submissions by the parties. The hearings of 11 October, 15 November, 6 and 16 December 2002 and 10 January 2003 were adjourned as the court required more time for deliberation. 46. On 20 January 2003 the First Hall of the Civil Court dismissed the applicant's application. 47. On 29 January 2003 the applicant appealed against that judgment to the Constitutional Court. 48. On 12 February 2003, the date of the first hearing, Mr Justice Degaetano, who presided over the Constitutional Court, withdrew from the case. A substitute judge was appointed and the case was adjourned until 12 March 2003 for oral submissions by the parties. 49. On 18 June 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. 50. On 7 July 2003 the Criminal Court set 5 January 2004 as the date for the trial on the merits of the charge of complicity in attempted murder. The applicant declared that he intended to bring before the European Court of Human Rights the issues raised in his constitutional complaint. 51. On 1 February 2004, the jury delivered a verdict of not guilty with respect to the charge of complicity in attempted murder. 52. In the course of the proceedings against him, the applicant applied for provisional release on bail on several occasions (3 October 1997, 3 February, 18 June and 27 October 1998, 27 August 1999, 14 and 15 December 2000). His requests were rejected by the Criminal Court and by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 24 October 1997, 16 February, 14 July and 11 November 1998, 27 September 1999 and 21 December 2000, after having held hearings at which the parties were able to make their oral submissions. 53. The Criminal Court was not persuaded that there was no danger that, once released, the applicant would not try to interfere with evidence or in any other way try to obstruct the course of justice with regard to his case. It referred, in particular, to the extraordinary gravity of the charges, which showed the manifest social danger posed by the applicant, who might commit further offences against the person, including offences of bodily harm. In this connection, it was observed that the identity of the witnesses had become known to the applicant. There was, moreover, a danger that the latter might try to abscond, making use of the contacts he had abroad, in order to avoid the heavy punishment which was likely to be inflicted on him in the event of his conviction. 54. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered that the applicant's situation had not significantly changed and that no new element justifying a departure from the previous findings had been submitted. In particular, it considered that the time that had elapsed since the beginning of the applicant's detention was not substantial enough to conclude that the length of the deprivation of liberty in issue was unreasonable. 55. In the meantime, on 30 March 1999, the applicant, alleging that his lengthy detention and the continued refusal of bail had infringed his rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, introduced a constitutional complaint before the First Hall of the Civil Court. He observed, in particular, that his deprivation of liberty was based, inter alia, on the risk of his tampering with evidence, a risk which, in the Attorney General's submission, had become even more serious because his accomplices were free and the identity and nature of the prosecution evidence and witnesses had become known to the accused. In the applicant's opinion, however, those fears were unfounded and the danger referred to by the authorities could in any case have been avoided by adopting the necessary precautionary measures, such as adequate surveillance by the police, with the possibility of house arrest. Moreover, the evidence of the prosecution had become known to the applicant by right in order to enable him to prepare his defence; that fact could therefore not be used against him to justify a violation of his other fundamental rights. 56. The Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police filed a memorandum in which they applied for the applicant's complaints to be dismissed. They pointed out that the offence attributed to the applicant was punishable by up to twenty years' imprisonment, and that this element created an incentive for the accused to try to tamper with evidence and also to abscond, possibly making use of the foreign contacts which he manifestly had. Moreover, the nature of the offence showed that the applicant was a danger to society and that there was a risk that he might commit other offences. Finally, the danger of his interfering with evidence was real, as was shown by the fact that after he had given evidence, a witness in his case had been attacked by two unknown persons. 57. Four hearings took place before the First Hall of the Civil Court on 9 and 14 April and 3 and 12 May 1999. On the last-mentioned date, the Civil Court authorised the applicant to file submissions concerning a non ‑ exhaustion plea raised by the respondents. This note was filed on 27 May 1999. 58. On 22 June 1999 the First Hall of the Civil Court dismissed the applicant's application. With reference to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Civil Court noted that the prolonged detention of a person who was presumed innocent but was suspected of having committed an offence should be justified in the public interest and that an accused deprived of his liberty had the right to have the investigations and trial conducted within a reasonable time. In the applicant's case, the Court of Criminal Appeal had taken into account the period of time spent by the applicant in detention in view of all the relevant circumstances, notably the nature and gravity of the charges, the danger of his tampering with evidence and the risk of his absconding. Moreover, the applicant's case was particularly complex, regard being had to the number of witnesses and experts involved in the investigations and to the pleas submitted by the parties, and it could not be said that the prosecution had failed to show diligence in the conduct of the investigations. The time that had elapsed from the beginning of the investigations could not, therefore, be considered unreasonable. Finally, the fact that the applicant had been denied bail was not prejudicial to the presumption of innocence, as the decisions in this regard did not reflect an opinion as to his guilt. 59. On 2 July 1999 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 22 June 1999 before the Constitutional Court. 60. The first hearing took place on 16 July 1999. On 29 July 1999 the applicant challenged two of the three sitting judges. A judgment on this issue was given on 4 August 1999. The two judges in question withdrew from hearing the case, which was adjourned until 2 September 1999, on which date the parties made oral submissions. On 15 October 1999 the applicant requested leave to produce a decision given by the Court of Criminal Appeal on his application for bail. This request was subsequently served on the respondents, who on 19 October 1999 declared that they did not oppose bail. The hearings of 20 October and 22 November 1999 and of 12 January and 14 February 2000 were adjourned because the Constitutional Court needed more time for deliberation. On 22 February 2000 the court observed that the members of the family of one of the sitting judges had fallen seriously ill and that this fact prevented it from taking a decision immediately; however, the case had been given the priority that it deserved. 61. On 8 March 2000, at the Constitutional Court's request, the parties made submissions on the point as to whether a decision on the issue under Article 5 of the Convention was required. 62. On 29 March 2000 the Constitutional Court upheld the decision of the First Hall of the Civil Court in so far as it concerned the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). However, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the applicant had also complained under Article 5 of the Convention, alleging that the grounds for his detention had weakened with the passing of time. Even if the accused had not explicitly quoted this latter Article in his final submissions, thus misleading the first-instance court, his complaint constituted a separate grievance on which the Civil Court should have made a specific ruling. Therefore, the Constitutional Court remitted the facts of the case to the Civil Court, instructing the latter to examine this complaint. 63. Proceedings were resumed before the First Hall of the Civil Court, and a hearing was scheduled for 17 April 2000. On 3 May 2000 five witnesses appeared on behalf of the respondents. They testified about incidents experienced by a witness who had testified against the applicant in the pre‑trial investigation proceedings and by the daughter of that witness. 64. On 5 May 2000 the President of the Civil Court withdrew from the case. A substitute judge was appointed on 16 May 2000, but he also had to withdraw as he was one of the judges who had denied one of the applicant's applications for bail. Another substitute judge was appointed on 25 May 2000, and a new hearing was set down for 14 June 2000. Other witnesses were heard on 3 and 24 July 2000. On 24 August 2000 the applicant waived the right to cross-examine those witnesses, but requested leave to file written observations. The latter were filed on 3 October 2000, seven days after the expiry of the time allowed by the Civil Court. The respondents filed their written reply at the hearing of 31 October 2000. On 8 November 2000 the case was adjourned for judgment. 65. On 14 December 2000 the First Hall of the Civil Court declared that the overall duration of the applicant's pre-trial detention had infringed Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and that the applicant was entitled provisionally to be released under conditions guaranteeing his appearance at the trial. The determination of these conditions was left to the discretion of the Criminal Court. 66. The Civil Court first underlined that a period of time held to be reasonable under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention could be considered excessive under Article 5 § 3, as the criteria laid down in the latter provision, which concerned personal liberty, were more rigorous. Moreover, it was clear that the passing of time could not but aggravate the prejudicial effects that the pre-trial detention had had on the applicant's situation. 67. The Civil Court further noted that the proceedings had not been conducted in a vacuum. In fact, the inquiry had been closed, the bill of indictment had been issued and the preliminary pleas had been decided. On the other hand, it should be kept in mind that the applicant had a right to institute all the proceedings and to lodge all the complaints he deemed necessary for the defence of his interests, even if this might prolong the criminal proceedings. 68. As to the grounds justifying the applicant's continuing detention, the Civil Court observed that the risk of his tampering with evidence appeared to subsist regardless of whether or not he remained under arrest. In fact, the Attorney General himself had mentioned that certain witnesses had already started to alter the evidence which they had given during the inquiry. Moreover, all the evidence against the applicant had already been gathered and heard on various occasions by the national courts, and the danger of interference with the course of justice was likely to be reduced as the investigations progressed. 69. As to the risk of committing new offences, the Civil Court noted that the prosecution had not proved that the applicant was responsible for certain incidents in which a witness and his relatives had been involved. Furthermore, as the crimes of which the applicant was accused had been allegedly committed on the basis of instructions, it could be argued that the applicant constituted a threat to society even if he remained in prison. In any case, it appeared that the prosecution was inferring the applicant's dangerousness more from the gravity of the case than from any other evidence. 70. Finally, it was true that the applicant risked a heavy sentence and that he had been abroad several times in 1994 and 1995. However, it had not been proved that the applicant had tangible connections outside Malta which might facilitate his escape. He had, on the contrary, strong family ties in Malta. Keeping in mind that the applicant had already spent four and a half years in detention, and that this period would in any case have been deducted from his final sentence, the Civil Court concluded that the risk of his absconding could be counterbalanced by adequate guarantees ensuring the appearance of the accused at the trial. 71. On 18 December 2000 the Attorney General of Malta and the Commissioner of Police appealed to the Constitutional Court against the judgment of 14 December 2000. 72. The first hearing took place on 27 December 2000. On that date all three judges composing the court withdrew from the case on account of their involvement in prior proceedings concerning the question of the applicant's release on bail. On the following day three new judges were appointed. The applicant then requested that the next hearing, scheduled for 12 January 2001, be fixed for an earlier date. A hearing was scheduled for 9 January 2001, on which date the parties made their oral submissions on the appeal. 73. On 23 January 2001 the Constitutional Court quashed the impugned judgment. It observed that the applicant's prolonged detention had been based on four grounds, notably the risk of contamination of evidence, the danger of his committing a new offence, the fact that he was a threat to society, and the danger that he might abscond or hide. In the Constitutional Court's view, each of these reasons was serious enough potentially to create an obstacle to the applicant's release. 74. The Constitutional Court noted that the prosecution had produced evidence demonstrating that the applicant had put pressure on individuals for the purpose of committing homicide on the basis of instructions. The risk of tampering with evidence was therefore a concrete one, especially at a stage where the applicant was aware of the content of the evidence and of the names of the witnesses. As to the risk of committing a new offence, the prosecution relied mainly on two incidents concerning a witness and his daughter. However, there was nothing to show that the applicant was responsible for those acts. On the other hand, evidence had been produced against the applicant in a separate set of criminal proceedings concerning a serious accusation of drug trafficking. 75. As to the possibility that the applicant might abscond, it was true that the longer his detention lasted, the more remote this possibility was. The fact that the applicant's family lived in Malta equally militated against the danger of flight. However, the seriousness of the charges brought against the applicant and the fact that he was about to face a trial by jury on charges of drug trafficking militated in the opposite direction. 76. It remained to be considered whether the time that had elapsed since the date of the arrest could neutralise all the other relevant factors justifying the applicant's deprivation of liberty. In this connection, it was noted that far from trying to speed up the proceedings, the applicant had caused a number of delays. For instance, when the Criminal Court had been ready to fix the date of the trial by jury, the applicant had challenged the judge, and from 13 September 1999 until 23 January 2001 his lawyers had demanded at least ten adjournments of the hearings, thus unnecessarily lengthening the proceedings. In particular, on 2 October 2000 the Criminal Court had provisionally scheduled the date of the trial by jury for 2 May 2001. Instead of objecting to this lengthy delay, counsel for the defence had asked why the Criminal Court was setting a provisional date for the trial instead of adjourning it sine die. In the Constitutional Court's opinion, this behaviour was difficult to reconcile with the applicant's declared wish to have his case heard within a reasonable time. 77. Even if it was preoccupied about the length of time that the applicant's trial was taking, the Constitutional Court concluded that in the special circumstances of the case, the national authorities had displayed special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings, and that the obstacles which had unduly delayed the latter were mainly attributable to the lawyers representing the applicant. It was true that the burden of special diligence rested on the authorities and not the accused. However, the indulgence shown by the Criminal Court in granting the adjournments was due to the demands made by the applicant. The Constitutional Court underlined that an accused person had every right to choose the best line of defence, but he did not have the right to lengthen the proceedings, under one pretext or another, or to employ such grounds in favour of his provisional release pending trial. 78. In the light of the above, the Constitutional Court found that the period of time spent by the applicant in pre-trial detention had not yet violated Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. It considered, however, that the applicant's application for bail should be allowed if a definitive date for the hearing of the trial was not fixed in due time after the Court of Criminal Appeal had ruled on the challenge to the judge presiding over the Criminal Court.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The first applicant is Mrs Eugenija Užkurėlienė, born in 1939 and living in Vilnius. The second applicant is Mr Povilas Čyžius, born in 1936 and living in the Kupiškis area in the Panevėžys region. The third applicant is Mr Stanislovas Čyžius, born in 1938 and living in Panevėžys. The fourth applicant is Ms Janina Čyžiutė, born in 1932 and living in the Kupiškis area. 9. The applicants are brothers and sisters. Before the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in 1940 the applicants' father owned 33.87 hectares of land (“the original land”). The land was nationalised by the Soviet authorities in the 1940s. Following the restoration of Lithuanian independence in 1990, the applicants became entitled to a claim in regard to their late father's land under the Restitution of Property Act (“the Act”). 10. On 25 September 1991 the applicants requested that compensation in land be given to them in accordance with the Act. 11. On 10 December 1993 the applicants changed their position, requesting that the original land be returned to them in kind. By letter of the administrative authorities of 31 January 1994 the applicants were informed that part of the original land (8.74 hectares) had already been allocated to a third person, FS, by decision of the Ministry of Agriculture of 30 December 1992. The applicants were informed that that part of the land could thus not be returned to them. 12. On 15 February 1994 the applicants applied to a court, requesting that the decision of 30 December 1992 be quashed. On 20 June 1994 the Vilnius City First District Court rejected the applicants' action. On 18 July 1994 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants' appeal against that judgment. 13. On 22 March 1995 the Supreme Court refused to grant leave for a cassation appeal. 14. On 4 October 1996 the applicants brought a fresh court action, requesting the return of the original land. On 29 June 1998 the Kupiškis District Court rejected the applicants' action. On 15 September 1998 the Panevėžys Regional Court rejected the applicants' appeal against that decision. The applicants submitted a cassation appeal to the Court of Appeal. 15. On 3 May 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed the lower decisions, returning the case for a fresh examination at first instance. 16. On 28 October 1999 the Kupiškis District Court again rejected the applicants' action. On 21 December 1999 the Panevėžys Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. The applicants submitted a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. 17. On 22 May 2000 the Supreme Court adopted a final judgment whereby it quashed the decisions of 28 October and 21 December 1999. The Supreme Court concluded that the authorities and the lower courts had been responsible for the delays in restoring the applicants' rights under the Act. It held inter alia: “From the material in possession it appears that the plaintiffs submitted a request to restore their property rights on 25 September 1991. Pursuant to Article 19 [of the Act], a decision on the request must have been adopted within three months from that date. ... [The] plaintiffs' right to an effective remedy was [therefore] violated. ... The plaintiffs had submitted enough evidence [enabling the administrative authorities] to adopt a decision on restitution of their property rights, even more so as the case-file contains no evidence that other persons claim restitution of property rights in regard to the land which belonged to the plaintiffs' father. ... Having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs' property rights have not been restored since 1991 ... [further litigation] would breach the plaintiffs' rights guaranteed by Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention ... ” 18. In the judgment of 22 May 2000 the Supreme Court ordered that the Panevėžys regional administration “take a decision to restore the [applicants'] property rights to the land which belonged to [their father] prior to the nationalisation”. 19. With respect to the applicants' claim about the allocation of part of the original land (8.74 hectares) to FS, the Supreme Court noted that in their original application for restitution of their property rights the applicants had asked for compensation, not for return of the original land, and that they had changed their claim only on 10 December 1993, i.e. almost a year following the authorities' decision of 30 December 1992 to allocate the impugned portion of land to FS. The Supreme Court concluded that thus the applicants could not have this part of the original land returned to them. It also noted however that the applicants were entitled to compensation for the impugned portion of land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 20. On 20 March 2002 the Panevėžys regional administration made an offer to the first applicant to afford her compensation in land for 5.36 hectares of her late father's former land that could not be returned in kind. The necessary formalities for the transfer of property rights to the first applicant have not yet been finalised as she did not reply to a number of the administration's letters requesting her to sign the relevant papers. 21. By a decision of the regional administration of 30 August 2002, the second and third applicants were returned in kind 16.08 hectares of the original land. 22. On the same date the administration allotted the fourth applicant 3.67 hectares of land in compensation for the equivalent part of the original land that could not be returned in kind. 23. On 9 July 2002 the regional administration made an offer for the fourth applicant to be allotted a further 1.69 hectares of land in compensation. On 17 December 2002 and 5 July 2004 the regional administration made an offer to compensate the fourth applicant for a further 1.22 hectares of her father's former land. The formalities for the transfer of property rights to her in this respect have not yet been finalised as she did not reply to a number of the administration's letters requesting her to sign the relevant papers. 24. On 17 December 2002 the regional administration made an offer to the second applicant to compensate in land for 0.78 hectares of the original land that could not be returned to him. The formalities for the transfer of property rights to him have not yet been finalised as he did not reply to a number of the administration's letters to sign the relevant documents. 25. On 12 February 2004 all four applicants were returned jointly a further 3.51 hectares of the original land. 26. On 19 July 2004 the regional administration afforded the first and the third applicant a further compensation in land for 1.56 hectares of the original land that could not be returned in kind.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Moscow. 10. On 3 July 1998 the applicant was arrested on the suspicion of shooting her husband, Lieutenant-General Lev Rokhlin, a member of the Russian Parliament. An investigator of the Moscow Region prosecutor's office authorised her detention on remand. The applicant was placed in detention facility no. IZ-49/9 in the Moscow Region. 11. On 8 July 1998 the applicant was charged with murder under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code and questioned as an accused in the presence of Mr Vankovich, a lawyer retained by her. She chose to remain silent on the merits of the charge against her and requested that the investigator be replaced because he had allegedly intimidated her and showed lack of respect for her and her family. On an unspecified date the applicant's request was rejected as unsubstantiated. 12. On 16 July 1998 the State Duma of the Russian Federation (the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament) established a special commission to monitor the progress of the investigation into the circumstances of Lieutenant-General Rokhlin's death (“the Duma commission”). 13. On 21 August 1998 the applicant's detention on remand was extended until 3 December 1998. The applicant did not appeal against the extension order. 14. On 1 December 1998 the applicant's detention was extended until 3 April 1999, that is for a total of nine months starting from the day of her arrest. On 9 December 1998 the applicant's lawyers appealed to a court against the extension order. They complained, in particular, about unreasonable delays in the investigation of the charge against their client and pointed to her frail health. The applicant submitted a supplementary complaint against the extension order; she indicated that her prolonged separation from her mentally disturbed son was detrimental to his health. 15. On 21 December 1998 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow rejected the appeals against the extension order. It held that the detention on remand had been imposed and extended “without any substantial violations of the law of criminal procedure” and that the detention was justified “because [the applicant] was charged with an especially serious criminal offence”. The court found no grounds to release the applicant on bail. On 21 December 1998 and 10 and 13 January 1999 the applicant's lawyers appealed against the decision of the district court. They submitted that the court had not taken into account the applicant's deteriorating health, long periods of inactivity of the team of eight investigators, discrepancies in the applicant's confessions. They also alleged that the court had failed in its duty to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the continued detention. On 13 January 1999 the Moscow City Court heard the appeal and ruled that the suspicion against the applicant that she had committed an especially serious criminal offence was, pursuant to Article 96 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, a sufficient ground for her detention on remand. 16. On 13 January 1999 the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted a special address to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. Members of Parliament noted that the investigation was lingering, while the applicant remained in custody. On 15 December 1998 the Duma commission members had met the applicant in prison and found her health unsatisfactory. In view of the applicant's poor health and adverse effects of her long separation from her mentally disturbed son and given that she was not a public danger, the Duma requested the Prosecutor General to consider the applicant's release from custody on humanitarian grounds. 17. On 18 March 1999 the applicant's detention on remand was extended until 3 July 1999, i.e. for a total of twelve months. The applicant's lawyers appealed against the extension. They requested that the applicant be released, citing her poor health and excessive delays in the investigation. 18. On 6 April 1999 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow found that the applicant's detention had been extended lawfully and no substantial violations of the laws of criminal procedure had occurred. The court held that, pursuant to Article 96 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, the suspicion of an especially serious criminal offence was a sufficient ground for the holding in custody and that there were no exceptional grounds warranting the applicant's release. The court also noted that the applicant's state of health permitted her holding in custody. 19. On 11 May 1999 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant's lawyers' appeal against the district court's decision. It upheld the district court's interpretation that the existence of a suspicion of involvement in an especially serious criminal offence had been a sufficient ground for the continued detention on remand. The court examined the medical certificates submitted by the applicant's defence and held that in the absence of any life-threatening medical condition and given that the applicant's adult daughter was taking care of her brother, the applicant should remain in custody. 20. On 23 June 1999 an extension of the detention on remand was authorised until 3 November 1999. The applicant did not appeal against the extension order. 21. On 8 October 1999 the acting Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation authorised the applicant's detention until 3 January 2000, i.e. for a total of eighteen months. 22. On 15 October 1999 the applicant's counsel, Mr Burmistrov, introduced an appeal against the detention order of 8 October 1999, under Article 2201 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the stamp on the first page, the registry of the Lefortovskiy District Court received the statement of appeal on the same date. 23. On 18 or 19 October 1999 [the date is unreadable] the applicant filed a handwritten statement of appeal against the order of 8 October 1999. On the same date the head of the Lefortovo detention centre forwarded it, along with the applicant's medical certificate, to the Lefortovskiy District Court. According to the stamp on the forwarding letter, the court received the document on 25 October 1999. 24. The applicant and her lawyer complained about unjustified delays in the investigation and submitted that the applicant's health and that of her son were steadily deteriorating. 25. By an interim decision of 25 October 1999, the Lefortovskiy District Court scheduled the examination of the appeal by Mr Burmistrov, for 27 October 1999, at 3 p.m., with the participation of a prosecutor, the applicant and her counsel. 26. According to the covering note produced by the Government, on 26 October 1999 the Prosecutor General's office sent certain materials relating to the lawfulness of the applicant's detention to the Lefortovskiy District Court. 27. On 27 October 1999 the applicant was not brought to the court because she had fallen ill. The prosecutor and her counsel objected to holding the hearing in her absence. The hearing was adjourned until 1 November 1999. 28. On 1 November 1999 the Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow heard the appeals against the extension order and dismissed them. The court held that “the imposition of a preventive measure in the form of placement in custody and [subsequent] extension of the detention in respect of the applicant were lawful and justified”. As to the defence's arguments about the applicant's medical condition and adverse effects of her separation from her son, the court found that these arguments were not “the grounds that would render the preventive measure applied to [the applicant] unlawful or unjustified”. The court also added that it was not competent to impose a different “preventive measure” on the applicant, such decision being in the exclusive competence of investigators and prosecutors. 29. On 1, 7 and 25 November 1999 the applicant's lawyers appealed against the decision of 1 November. They submitted that the court did not take into account significant changes in the applicant's situation after fifteen months of detention, including the worsening health of her son, and that it did not give any relevant reasons for the continued detention. 30. On 25 November 1999 by the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 1 November 1999. The court confirmed the conclusions of the first instance court to the effect that “the placement in custody as a preventive measure could be imposed on the sole ground of gravity of the [committed] offence”. On the basis of a medical certificate issued by the detention facility on 4 November 1999 the court determined that the applicant could remain in custody. 31. On 23 December 1999 the acting Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation applied to the Moscow City Court for an extension of the applicant's detention until 3 July 2000. 32. On 29 December 1999 the Moscow City Court refused the Prosecutor General's application. It established that on 28 December 1999 the applicant and her lawyers had finished studying the case-file and there were therefore no lawful grounds to extend her detention beyond the maximum eighteen-month period. 33. On 30 December 1999 the prosecutor ordered the applicant's release from custody on the condition that she sign an undertaking not to leave the city. 34. On 16 November 2000 the Naro-Fominsk Town Court of the Moscow Region convicted the applicant of premeditated murder and sentenced her to eight years' imprisonment in a correctional colony. The court excluded the record of the interview made on the day following the arrest as inadmissible evidence because the applicant had been interviewed in the absence of a counsel, her rights had not been explained to her, she had not been informed of video-recording and because there were substantial discrepancies between the videotaped statements and the printed record. 35. On 21 December 2000 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the conviction. It established, however, mitigating circumstances in the applicant's case and reduced her sentence to four years' imprisonment. 36. On 7 June 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by way of supervisory review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 16 November and 21 December 2000 and remitted the case to the Naro-Fominsk Town Court of the Moscow Region for a new examination. 37. Since 11 October 2001 the criminal case against the applicant has been pending before the Naro-Fominsk Town Court of the Moscow Region. 38. On 25 March 2002 the proceeding were stayed because of the applicant's illness. They were resumed on an unspecified date. 39. On 22 April 2003 the applicant was taken to a hospital after she had a heart attack in the courtroom. 40. On 20 August 2003 the proceedings were stayed again because of the applicant's illness. They were resumed on an unspecified date. 41. On 15 April 2004 the proceedings were adjourned until 13 May 2004 at the applicant's daughter's request. 42. On 13 May 2004 the hearing was adjourned because one lay assessor had fallen ill. 43. On 28 May 2004 the applicant did not appear at the hearing because she had to attend to her son. 44. On 20 July 2004 the hearing was adjourned owing to the applicant's counsel's absence. On 8 September 2004 another counsel for the applicant did not appear. 45. On 25 October 2004 the court decided to hold a new directions hearing because, by virtue of recently amended Article 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant's case could be tried either by a single judge or by a three-judge bench. On 1 November 2004 the applicant applied for trial by a single judge. 46. The case is still pending before the trial court.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The first applicant, Mr Raimundas Rainys, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Vilnius. The second applicant, Mr Antanas Gasparavičius, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Kretinga. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 9. From 1975 to October 1991 the first applicant was an employee of the Lithuanian branch of the Soviet Security Service (hereinafter the “KGB”). Thereafter he found employment as a lawyer in a private telecommunications company. 10. On 17 February 2000 two authorities - the Lithuanian State Security Department and the Centre for Research into the Genocide and Resistance of the Lithuanian People - jointly concluded that the applicant was subject to the restrictions imposed under Article 2 of the Law on the Evaluation of the USSR State Security Committee (NKVD, NKGB, MGB, KGB) and the Present Activities of Permanent Employees of the Organisation (hereinafter “the Act”, see paragraph 22 below). The conclusion confirmed that the applicant had the status of a “former KGB officer” as construed by the Act. As a result, on 23 February 2000 he was dismissed from his job at the telecommunications company. 11. The applicant brought an administrative action against the security intelligence authorities, arguing that his dismissal under Article 2 of the Act and the resultant inability to find employment were unlawful. 12. On 29 June 2000 the Higher Administrative Court found that the conclusion of 17 February 2000 had been substantiated, and that the applicant was subject to the restrictions imposed under Article 2 of the Act. 13. On 5 September 2000 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal. 14. The applicant has been unemployed since 26 February 2002. 15. From 1971 until October 1991 the second applicant worked at the KGB. Thereafter he started practising as a barrister. 16. On an unspecified date in 2000, the Lithuanian State Security Department and the Centre for Research into the Genocide and Resistance of the Lithuanian People jointly concluded that the applicant had the status of a “former KGB officer”, and that he was thereby subject to the restrictions imposed under Article 2 of the Act. On 12 June 2000 the Bar informed him that he would be disbarred pursuant to that law. 17. The applicant brought an administrative action, claiming that his dismissal from the Bar would be unlawful. While the applicant did not contest the fact that he had worked for the KGB even following the declaration of Lithuanian independence on 11 March 1990, he submitted that thereafter he had worked as an informer for the authorities of independent Lithuania. Furthermore, throughout his time at the KGB the applicant had allegedly only worked with cases concerning purely criminal investigations, not political persecutions. In the applicant's view, he had been entitled to be exempted from the employment restrictions, in accordance with Article 3 of the Act. 18. On 21 February 2001 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant's claim. The court found that he had indeed worked with criminal investigations while at the KGB, but that he had remained employed there until his retirement in October 1990. The court held that the exceptions in Article 3 of the Act were not applicable to the applicant, given that he did not end his employment with the KGB immediately after Lithuania's declaration of independence on 11 March 1990. 19. Upon the applicant's appeal, on 16 May 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld this decision. The court reiterated that the applicant was not entitled to be exempted under Article 3 of the Act, as he had not ended his KGB employment immediately after 11 March 1990. Moreover, there was no plausible evidence attesting that thereafter the applicant had worked at the KGB as an agent of the authorities of independent Lithuania. 20. As a result of the proceedings on 29 May 2001 the applicant was disbarred. 21. He has now found employment in the business field.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Vilnius. 10. The applicant was suspected of having committed various fraudulent offences between October 1992 and October 1993. In 1994 criminal proceedings on three counts of cheating, suppression of documents and false accounting were instituted against him. As the applicant had absconded from the investigation, on 21 November 1994 the prosecutors declared him a wanted person. 11. On 24 September 1996 the applicant was arrested in Moscow on an extradition request by the Lithuanian authorities. He was extradited to Lithuania on 30 December 1996. 12. On 31 December 1996 the Šiauliai City District Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand until 31 January 1997 on suspicion of his suppressing documents. The court referred to the dangers of the applicant absconding and committing further offences. On 24 January 1997 the court extended the term to 31 March 1997, on 28 March to 31 May 1997 and on 30 May to 13 June 1997. 13. On 5 June 1997 the case was transmitted to the Šiauliai City District Court. On 6 August 1997 the court committed the applicant for trial. On the same date the court also authorised the applicant's detention, stating that his remand must remain unchanged. No term of the detention was specified. 14. On 10 September 1998 the Šiauliai City District Court convicted the applicant of cheating and suppressing documents but acquitted him of false accounting. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and his property was confiscated. The court ordered him to pay 615,264 Lithuanian litai (LTL) of damages in favour of a bank. 15. On 2 March 1999 the Šiauliai Regional Court amended the first instance judgment insofar as it concerned the damages against the applicant, reducing the amount to 476,000 LTL. 16. Upon the applicant's cassation appeal, on 29 June 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the above decisions and returned the case for a new first instance examination. No question relating to the applicant's remand in custody was mentioned by the Supreme Court in the decision. 17. On 30 July 1999 the Šiauliai City District Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand until 1 September 1999 on suspicion of his having cheated and suppressed documents. The court referred to the danger of the applicant absconding. The District Court also noted that on 29 June 1999 the Supreme Court had not ruled on the applicant's remand. On 31 August 1999 the term of the applicant's detention was extended until 15 November 1999. On 15 November 1999 the term was extended until 31 December 1999. On 30 December 1999 the Šiauliai District Court extended the term of the applicant's remand in custody “until a court judgment would be taken in the case”. 18. On 6 March 2000 the Šiauliai District Court convicted the applicant of suppressing documents and acquitted him of cheating. 476,000 LTL were awarded against the applicant in damages in favour of a bank. The sentence of five years' imprisonment was reduced by one third due to an amnesty law. The applicant was released in the courtroom as he was deemed to have already completed his sentence because of the time he had spent on remand. The court also ordered his release on bail, with home arrest, until the entry into force of the judgment. The applicant and his lawyer were present during the hearing. 19. On 4 May 2000 the Šiauliai Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal. On that date the conviction took effect for the purposes of domestic law and the bail constraints ceased. The applicant and his representative were present at the appeal hearing. 20. On 24 October 2000 the Supreme Court examined the applicant's cassation appeal. The court amended the lower decisions, reducing the applicant's sentence to three years' imprisonment. The applicant and his defence counsel were present before the Supreme Court. That decision was final. 21. From 2 January 1997 until 22 September 1999 the applicant was held at the Šiauliai Remand Prison (Šiaulių tardymo izoliatorius). From 22 to 28 September 1999 he was held at a Kaunas police custody centre. On 28 September 1999 he was again detained at the Šiauliai Remand Prison until his release on 6 March 2000. 22. The applicant gave the following account of the detention conditions at the Šiauliai Remand Prison: Living space for one prisoner amounted to 1.5 square metres. The applicant states that he lived and slept in cells of less than 20 square metres where from 10 to 15 inmates were held. There was an open toilet in each cell. They lacked ventilation and had a strong smell due to the inmates' smoking and toilet use. The cells were very humid and cold, particularly during the winter. The insufficiency of the living space was aggravated by the scarce time for strolling in the prison yard (one hour daily). Prison bedding was in an awful and dirty condition. All washing had to be done by hand in a sink in the cell. There was a constant lack of hot and cold water. The applicant had access to a shower only once in 15 days. Food was prepared and served in awful conditions. Only 6 LTL per day were allocated for an inmate's catering. 23. The Government provided the following account of the applicant's detention conditions at the Šiauliai Remand Prison: From 2 January 1997 until 24 August 1998 the applicant was held at the cell no. 11 of the prison which accommodated 11 detainees at the time. The overall capacity of the cell was 16.65 square metres, i.e. 1.51 m² per detainee. From 24 August 1998 until 22 June 1999 he was held in the cell no. 86 which accommodated 9 inmates. The cell's capacity was 17.78 m², i.e. 1.98 m² per detainee. From 22 June 1999 until 28 December 1999 the applicant was held in the cell no. 87 which accommodated 10 inmates. The capacity of cell was 19.7 m², i.e. 1.97 m² per detainee. From 7 January 2000 until 12 January 2000 he was held in the cell no. 37 which had 4 inmates, including the applicant. The cell's capacity was 7.68 m², i.e. 1.92 m² per detainee. From 12 January 2000 until 3 March 2000 the applicant was held in the cell no. 34 which accommodated 2 inmates. The capacity of the cell was 7.9 m², i.e. 3.95 m² per inmate. The cells had toilets separated by 1.2 metres-high partitions. The cells also had windows, and the ventilation and lighting were adequate. Inmates were allowed to smoke, but persons could apply to the prison administration to be transferred to a no-smoking cell upon request. In 1997 the sanitation facilities were renovated. In 1998 a new heating system was installed. After the renovation in 1999-2000 of the prison bath, possibilities were afforded for each detainee to use the bath once a week. In 2000 industrial laundry facilities were procured, therefore allowing for adequate washing of inmates' clothes and bedding. 24. The applicant alleged that his letters to the European Commission of Human Rights of 12 and 13 October 1998, and to the European Court of Human Rights of 28 March, 13 July, 26 August, 5, 8 and 17 November, 26 December 1999, 15 and 30 January, 2, 7, 9, 13, 21, 25 and 29 February, 2 and 5 March 2000 had been censored by the administration of the Šiauliai Remand Prison. 25. The applicant also alleged that the letters addressed to him by the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights of 17 November 1998, 21 April, 9 and 10 August, 8 October, 14 December 1999, 17 January 2000, 1, 21 and 23 February, 3 and 9 March 2000 had been opened up and read in his absence by the administration of the Šiauliai Remand Prison.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Florence. 7. The applicants are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to R. A. 8. In a writ served on the tenant on 4 March 1987, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate. 9. By a decision of 3 June 1987, which was made enforceable on 12 June 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by February 1990. 10. On 10 March 1990, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. 11. On 5 April 1990, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves. 12. On 11 April 1990, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 May 1990. 13. Between 31 May 1990 and 4 May 1999, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. 14. On 26 July 1999, pursuant to Law 431/98, the tenant asked for the suspension of the eviction proceedings. 15. On 30 September 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Rome. 7. He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to R.B. 8. In a registered letter of 31 December 1990, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 November 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date. 9. In a writ served on the tenant on 18 February 1992, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate. 10. By a decision of 8 July 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 May 1994. 11. Pursuant to Law no. 359/92 the expiry of the term was extended for two years from 30 November 1993 to 30 November 1995. 12. Nonetheless, on 4 November 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. 13. On 30 November 1994, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 December 1994. 14. Between 15 December 1994 and 10 October 1995, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. In the meanwhile, the tenant fell in rent arrears. 15. On 6 April 1995, pursuant to Law no. 61/89, the applicant asked the Rome Magistrate to suspend the extension of the expiry of the term and asked to be granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. The Rome Magistrate refused to grant the assistance of the police. 16. Therefore, the applicant decided to restart the eviction proceedings. 17. In a writ served on the tenant on 29 November 1995, the applicant informed her of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate. 18. By a decision of 28 March 1996, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 January 1997. 19. On 20 February 1997, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. 20. On 9 May 1997, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 May 1997. 21. Between 20 May 1997 and 15 October 1998, the bailiff made seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 22. The eviction proceedings having been suspended pursuant to Law no. 431/1998, on 8 September 1999 the applicant served a second order to vacate the premises. 23. On 29 September 1999, a second notice was served on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 October 1999. 24. After two attempts, on 3 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of his flat.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in born in 1961 and lives in Vienna. She is the owner of a plot of land in Vienna. At the time of the events she was building a house on her land. 9. On 16 October 1992 officers of the Regional Vienna Labour Office (Landesarbeitsamt) inspected the construction site and found that four persons of Czech nationality, who were carrying out plaster works, had no permit to work in Austria. 10. On 21 October 1992 the Labour Office submitted a report to the Vienna Municipal Office (Magistrat) alleging that the applicant had illegally employed four foreigners. Thereupon, the Municipal Office opened administrative criminal proceedings against the applicant under the Aliens' Employment Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz) and invited her, by letter of 29 December 1992, to comment on the charge against her. As the applicant was out of town, this letter did not reach her prior to 20 January 1993, when the Municipal Office ordered the applicant to pay a fine in the amount of ATS 66,000 (EUR 4,796.41) for having illegally employed four foreigners contrary to the provisions of the Aliens' Employment Act. This order was served on the applicant on 4 February 1993. According to the applicant, this was the first time that she became aware that proceedings had been instituted against her. 11. On 11 February 1993 the applicant, assisted by counsel, filed a request for reinstatement into the first instance proceedings (Wiedereinsetzungsantrag) and lodged an appeal with the Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat, hereafter referred to as “IAP”) against the order of 20 January 1993. 12. On 19 February 1993 the Municipal Office rejected the request for reinstatement into the proceedings. The applicant appealed on 25 March 1993 to the IAP. 13. On 14 February 1995 the IAP summoned the parties to a hearing scheduled for 21 March 1995 and invited the applicant to comment on the charge. The applicant did so on 3 March 1995. 14. On 21 March 1995 the IAP dismissed her appeal concerning reinstatement. It found that the invitation to comment on the charge of 29 December 1992 had been served in accordance with the provisions of the Official Notifications Act (Zustellgesetz) and that therefore the Municipal Office's decision of 19 February 1993 to refuse reinstatement into the proceedings had been lawful. This decision was served on the applicant on 17 May 1995. The applicant's complaint of 21 June 1995 against the IAP's decision was rejected by the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) on 7 September 1995. 15. On 21 March 1995 the IAP also examined the applicant's appeal of 11 February 1993 against the order of 20 January 1993 to pay the fine in the amount of ATS 66,000. Having deliberated, the IAP rejected the applicant's appeal the same day. 16. On 23 August 1996 the IAP finalised the written version of its decision on the applicant's appeal of 11 February 1993. It found that the applicant had concluded work contracts with foreigners which required a valid work permit under the Aliens' Employment Act. The decision was served on 29 November 1996. 17. On 19 December 1996 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). 18. By a decision of 30 September 1997 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint for lack of prospects of success and transferred the case to the Administrative Court. This decision was served on 9 December 1997. 19. On 9 April 1998 the IAP commented on the applicant's complaint and, on 20 May 1998, the applicant submitted observations in reply. 20. On 13 September 1999 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. This decision was served on 30 September 1999.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicants were respectively born in 1963 and 1959 and live in Rome. 7. A.C., the applicants' mother, was the owner of a flat in Rome which she had let to A.F. 8. In a registered letter of 2 May 1987, A.C. informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date. 9. In a writ served on the tenant on 15 June 1987, A.C. reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate. 10. By a decision of 30 November 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988. 11. On 2 October 1989, A.C. served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. 12. On 30 October 1989, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 December 1989. 13. Between 19 December 1989 and 25 January 2000, the bailiff made forty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 14. In the meanwhile, on 27 February 1996, A.C., the applicants' mother, died and the applicants inherited the flat. 15. On 28 March 1996, the applicants became party in the national proceedings as heirs. 16. On 14 February 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Ankara. 5. On 21 November 1983 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev‑Yol (Devrimci Yol - the Revolutionary Way). 6. On 30 December 1983 the Ankara Martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. 7. On 14 December 1988 the applicant was released pending trial. 8. On 19 July 1989 the Ankara Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. 9. On 28 December 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Ankara Martial Law Court on the ground that the latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question. 10. Subsequent to the promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Ankara Assize Court acquired jurisdiction in the applicant’s case. 11. On 6 May 1996 the Ankara Assize Court commenced the applicant’s trial. 12. On 28 May 2004 the applicant was convicted of attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 of the Criminal Code. The first-instance court however held that there was no need for the applicant’s imprisonment, taking into account his previous custody and detention on remand. 13. The proceedings are still pending.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The first applicant was born in 1968 and is currently in prison in the Isle of Wight, the second was born in 1961 and lives in London and the third was born in 1980 and lives in Leeds. The fourth applicant was born in 1976. 6. On 15 March 1996 the applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment following a conviction for causing grievous bodily harm. 7. It was later alleged that on 5 June 1998, as he was being transferred to HMP Parkhurst, a fight broke out during which he “headbutted” one of the prison officers. On 6 June 1998 he was charged with assault contrary to Rule 47(1) of the Prison Rules 1964. 8. The adjudication hearing before the governor commenced on 22 June and continued on 23 June 1998 when a letter was received from the applicant’s solicitor requesting that he be legally represented at the hearing. The governor adjourned the hearing until 14 July 1998 to consider the request. On 7 July 1998 legal aid was granted by the Legal Aid Board for representation prior to and at the adjudication hearing. 9. On 8 July 1998 the applicant orally outlined to the governor why he needed legal representation but the governor rejected the request: “I have considered the case for legal [representation]. I do not feel there is an issue of seriousness or potential penalty. You are able to conduct your defence. You have access to check original with the prisoners you may call as witness. I do not consider you have been unfairly treated in comparison with the other prisoner so charged. No points of law are in question”. 10. By letter of 28 July 1998 the applicant’s solicitors asked the governor to reconsider. By letter of 30 July 1998 the prison service responded explaining that in considering requests for representation governors did not need to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that representation was not needed before rejecting a request but were required to take account of the six criteria set out in the “Tarrant principles” (R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Tarrant [1984] QB 251). 11. The adjudication hearing resumed on 25 September 1998. The applicant again requested legal representation for the hearing without success. The governor found the applicant guilty (adding “whether your actions were deliberate or reckless, although you have not advanced that as a defence”) and sentenced him to 21 “additional days” pursuant to Rule 50 (1) (f) of the Prison Rules 1964. 12. On 5 November 1998 his solicitors appealed to the Secretary of State referring to the imminent incorporation into domestic law of Article 6 of the Convention and to the failure to grant legal representation for the hearing. By letter dated 10 December 1998 the Secretary of State rejected the appeal stating that the adjudication had been thoroughly reviewed, that the hearing had been fairly conducted and that the findings should be upheld. 13. The applicant was granted legal aid to obtain counsel’s opinion on the lawfulness of the governor’s decision of 8 July 1998. Counsel advised on 11 January 1999 that the applicant had no realistic prospects of success given the Hone and McCartan case (Hone and McCartan v. Maze Prison Board of Visitors [1998] 1 All ER 381). As to whether the governor’s exercise of discretion was unreasonable, the “Tarrant criteria”, the “relatively minor nature of the offence” and the capacity of the applicant, meant that the prospects of passing the “high hurdle of irrationality” on judicial review were remote. 14. In December 1987 the applicant was sentenced to seventeen years’ imprisonment for armed robbery and making threats to kill. 15. Following a fire in his cell, on 15 November 1998 he was charged with intentionally endangering the health or personal safety of others by his conduct, or of being reckless as to whether such health or safety was endangered, contrary to rule 49 of the Prison Rules 1964. He appeared at an adjudication hearing before the governor on 16 November 1998. He pleaded not guilty and the hearing was adjourned. 16. On 24 November 1998 a solicitor submitted a written request to the governor to represent the applicant at the adjudication hearing. 17. On 16 December 1998 the adjudication reconvened. The applicant made written representations in which he admitted telling a prison officer that he had caused the fire by throwing a lighted taper on the bed. However, he explained that that was untrue and that he believed his cell had been deliberately set on fire by other prisoners who thought that he was an informant. He had not explained this to the prison officers at the time as he was in the presence of other prisoners and he feared reprisals. He consistently maintained throughout the hearing that he had not started the fire. He cross-examined various witnesses called by the governor. The hearing continued the following day when he formally applied for legal representation for the remainder of the hearing, on the grounds that there were a large number of witnesses to be called, that the charge was a serious one and that it was difficult to be his own representative given the issue about his false admission. The governor refused his request taking the view that the offence was not sufficiently serious to warrant legal representation and that the applicant had demonstrated that he was capable of presenting his own defence. The hearing was adjourned until 22 December 1998 to enable a particular prison officer to be called. 18. On 22 December 1998 the applicant was due for early release from custody pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. On the morning of that day he fell down a flight of stairs and was injured. He was treated for head and back pain by a doctor at a hospital. Once informed of developments, the applicant’s solicitor submitted orally to the governor that, given the applicant’s injury, the interests of natural justice required the charge to be dismissed and the applicant to be released. Further written representations were also made: due to the nature of the injuries and the medication received, it was unreasonable for the applicant to represent himself and the charge should be dismissed and that the solicitor should be informed should the proceedings continue so that he could make further representations. These written representations were not seen by the governor until after the adjudication hearing. The applicant returned to prison after his treatment and was certified by the prison doctor as fit for adjudication. The adjudication recommenced that day (22 December 1998) and the applicant was accompanied at the hearing by a medical officer. While prison staff maintained that he was alert and able to conduct his defence (even asking for the hearing to commence), the applicant stated that he felt so dizzy and ill that he could not concentrate and was incapable of asking questions or putting forward his case. The same day he was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to 35 additional days’ detention to commence on that day. 19. The applicant applied to the Secretary of State to review the hearing. He maintained that he had been unable to conduct his defence properly because of the medication and that the governor erred in refusing legal representation given the seriousness of the charge. The Secretary of State upheld the finding and punishment. An application for leave to apply for judicial review was lodged, leave was granted, the High Court hearing took place on 18 January 1999 but the substantive application for judicial review was dismissed. 20. The applicant was released on 26 January 1999. 21. On 31 March 1999 the applicant was sentenced to 23 months’ imprisonment following conviction for violent disorder, affray, criminal damage and breach of a supervision order. He was detained at a young offenders’ institution in Doncaster. 22. On 5 April 1999 he was charged with assaulting (punch in the face) another inmate (H) contrary to Rule 50(1) of the Young Offender Institution Rules 1988. The applicant claimed that he asked to see a solicitor but was told that he was not allowed to do so. He then pleaded guilty to the charge. On 6 April 1999 the deputy controller of the prison commenced the adjudication of the charge. However, once it became apparent that H’s jaw had been broken, the adjudication was adjourned and the charge was referred to the police for investigation. 23. On 9 April 1999 the applicant’s solicitors wrote to the controller requesting confirmation that the applicant could be legally represented at any adjudication. On 12 April 1999 the controller responded stating that the adjudication had been adjourned as the charge had been referred to the police. He also noted that the applicant had not requested legal advice or representation at the hearing, had pleaded guilty to the charge and had apologised for the injuries caused. On 19 April 1999 the controller wrote to the applicant’s solicitors, stating that: “I write to advise that the victim of the alleged assault will not co-operate with the police investigation and wishes for the matter to be dealt with internally. In view of the foregoing it is our intention to complete the hearing forthwith. As your client pleaded guilty at the initial hearing I am not prepared to allow him to be legally represented. I have applied the ‘Tarrant’ criteria and am satisfied that he can adequately conduct his own defence and, if necessary, mitigate his actions.” 24. On 21 April 1999 the applicant’s solicitors asked the controller to re-consider his refusal of legal representation: since the applicant had instructed them that it was self-defence, his guilty plea was not satisfactory. The applicant submitted that his solicitor had also advised that that defence was potentially a good one. By letter of 21 April 1999 the controller rejected their request: the applicant could claim self-defence at the hearing and that claim would be examined on adjudication. 25. On 23 April 1999 he was refused leave by the High Court to seek judicial review of the controller’s decision of 21 April 1999: there was no arguable case that the controller had failed to exercise his discretion in accordance with the above-noted Tarrant criteria. On 26 May 1999 the applicant’s renewed application for leave to seek judicial review to the Court of Appeal was refused. It was considered a simple case in which the applicant had sworn an affidavit setting out his account of the incident including a passage which claimed self-defence and the adjudicator would have to decide whether he believed the applicant or H. The Convention case-law opened to the Court (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, Benham v. the United Kingdom judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, and Findlay v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports 1997-I) did not establish an inflexible rule that legal representation should be accorded in every case or even a looser rule that it should be generally accorded. It was held that there was no need for legal representation and that there was no identifiable legal error in the controller’s refusal. 26. On 1 June 1999 the adjudication hearing took place. The applicant was found guilty as charged. He was awarded 35 additional days’ imprisonment and he was to be excluded from associated work for 14 days. Fourteen days of canteen privileges together with associated dining and recreation privileges were also forfeited. 27. On 22 July 1999 the applicant was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment for motoring offences. His ordinary release date would have been 18 September 1999. 28. On 6 September 1999 he was charged with a breach of prison discipline contrary to paragraph 51(16) of the Prison Rules 1999, it being alleged that he had thrown burning material from a cell window. The hearing was adjourned to allow it to be heard by the deputy governor. 29. On 13 September 1999, upon his return from annual leave, the applicant’s solicitor received a letter from the applicant denying the charges and requesting urgent assistance. The solicitor sent a facsimile to the governor at 9.30 a.m. on 13 September 1999 requesting an adjournment to enable him to take urgent instructions and provide legal advice. The hearing resumed on 14 September 1999 when the deputy governor refused an adjournment. It is recorded on the applicant’s “Record of Hearing and Adjudication” that the deputy governor stated the following: “I have a letter from your solicitor requesting that you be allowed legal advice. I have considered your request and refuse it on the following grounds. 5. There is a need for reasonable speed. There has already been a delay.” The deputy governor found the applicant guilty as charged and awarded 18 additional days’ imprisonment. 30. An application for leave to apply for judicial review was made arguing that the imprisonment was based upon a punishment, the legality of which was seriously flawed both on grounds of irrationality and procedural unfairness. On 21 September 1999 Mr. Justice Moses granted leave but refused bail. On 23 September 1999 the Secretary of State quashed the punishment in the following terms: “The adjudication detailed above has been reviewed and it has now been decided that the finding of guilt should be quashed on the grounds that the adjudicator should have offered Mr. Clarke a limited opportunity to consult with his solicitors. Although Mr. Clarke did not apply for legal advice or assistance at the original hearing on 6 September he should have been given the opportunity to discuss matters with his solicitor, possibly by telephone to arrange for a meeting the next day, and given a deadline for obtaining the advice he sought. A time limit could have been set to ensure that the prisoner did not delay the hearing unnecessarily. In view of the urgency of this case, please arrange for Mr. Clarke to be released immediately as this decision means that he is serving added days now.” 31. The applicant was released at 17.10 hours on 23 September 1999, having served five of the additional days awarded. 32. By letter dated 26 November 1999 the Treasury Solicitor refused to admit liability in respect of the alleged unlawful imprisonment. Counsel was therefore asked to advise whether there existed any effective domestic remedy which the applicant could pursue in respect of the relevant five-day period of detention. Counsel advised that there was no such remedy: under English law a disciplinary finding was presumed to be valid and, in effect, the order for additional days’ detention was valid until it was set aside. 33. On 28 January 2000 the applicant’s solicitor wrote to the Treasury Solicitor pointing out that, in the light of Counsel’s advice, no claim for false imprisonment or misfeasance in public office would be commenced. However, it was alleged that the deputy governor’s conduct violated Article 6 of the Convention. A request was therefore made for an ex gratia payment to compensate the applicant for the 5 days’ detention resulting from the adjudication. The Treasury Solicitor responded that the matter would be considered after the publication of the House of Lords judgment in R. v. Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans. No. 2 ([1999] 2 WLR 103). The Government have not submitted that any payment was made.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

52. The applicants, Mr Abdul-Vakhab Shamayev, Mr Rizvan (or Rezvan) Vissitov, Mr Khusein Aziev, Mr Adlan (or Aslan) Adayev (or Adiev), Mr Khusein Khadjiev, Mr Ruslan Gelogayev, Mr Akhmed Magomadov, Mr Khamzat Issayev, Mr Robinzon Margoshvili, Mr Giorgi Kushtanashvili, Mr Aslambek Khanchukayev, Mr Islam Khashiev alias Rustam Elikhadjiev alias Bekkhan Mulkoyev and Mr Timur (or Ruslan) Baymurzayev alias Khusein Alkhanov (see paragraphs 54 and 55 below)[2], are thirteen Russian and Georgian nationals who were born in 1975, 1977, 1973, 1968, 1975, 1958, 1955, 1975, 1967, 19...[3], 1981, 1979 (or 1980) and 1975 respectively. 53. On 17 and 18 October 2002 Mr Shamayev, Mr Vissitov, Mr Aziev, Mr Adayev and Mr Khadjiev, namely the applicants who had been extradited from Georgia to Russia on 4 October 2002, were placed in a pre-trial detention centre (“SIZO”) in A, a town in the Stavropol region, in the North Caucasus (see paragraph 17 above). Their place of custody between 4 and 17/18 October 2002 remains unknown. On 26 July 2003 Mr Shamayev, Mr Khadjiev, Mr Vissitov and Mr Adayev were transferred to a SIZO in town B, in the Stavropol region. Following the Court's request, on 7 October 2003 the Russian Government communicated the address of this SIZO and confirmed that Mr Aziev was also detained there (see also paragraph 242 below). They did not specify the date on which he had been transferred. 54. Having been unable to hear the applicants extradited to Russia (see paragraph 49 above), the Court has used the surnames provided by Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili for four of them. The name of Mr Khusein Khadjiev, the fifth applicant, is that mentioned on his application form, which reached the Court on 27 October 2003 (see paragraph 235 below). 55. As to the non-extradited applicants, Mr Margoshvili has been free since his acquittal on 8 April 2003 (see paragraph 94 below); Mr Gelogayev was released following a judgment of 6 February 2004 (see paragraph 99 below); Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Issayev, Mr Magomadov and Mr Kushtanashvili were released on 5 and 6 January 2005 and 18 February 2005 (see paragraph 98 below). The identity of those six applicants has been established by the Court (see paragraphs 110-15 below). After disappearing in Tbilisi on 16 or 17 February 2004, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were arrested by the Russian authorities on 19 February 2004. They are apparently detained at present in the Essentuki pre-trial detention centre (see paragraph 101 below). Having been unable to hear them in Russia (see paragraphs 46 et seq. above), the Court will refer to them by the surnames communicated by their representatives when lodging the application. 56. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and established by the Court during its fact-finding visit to Tbilisi, may be summarised as follows. 57. Between 3 and 5 August 2002 the applicants crossed the Russo-Georgian border near the Guirevi checkpoint (Georgia). Some of them were injured and were carrying sub-machine guns and grenades. Having asked the Georgian border guards for help, they apparently handed over their weapons voluntarily. An identity check was carried out. As a result, the names of the individuals claiming to be Abdul‑Vakhab Shamayev, Rizvan (or Rezvan) Vissitov, Khusein Aziev, Adlan (or Aslan) Adayev (or Adiev), Khusein Khadjiev (or Khosiin Khadjayev, Khajiev), Ruslan Mirjoyev, Adlan (Aldan) Usmanov, Khamzat Issiev, Ruslan Tepsayev, Seibul (or Feisul) Bayssarov, Aslan Khanoyev, Timur (or Ruslan) Baymurzayev (or Baemurzayev) and Islam Khashiev were recorded. Only the first five applicants would appear to have been in possession of Russian passports. 58. The applicants were immediately transferred by helicopter to Tbilisi; they were initially placed in a civilian hospital, where those who were injured were operated on. On 5 August 2002 Mr Tepsayev (Margoshvili), Mr Vissitov, Mr Baysarov (Kushtanashvili), Mr Aziev, Mr Shamayev, Mr Khadjiev and Mr Issiev (Issayev) were charged with importing weapons in breach of the customs regulations (Article 214 § 4 of the Criminal Code), illegally carrying, handling and transporting weapons (Article 236 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Code) and crossing the border illegally (Article 344 of the Code). On 6 August 2002, further to an application by the Ministry of Security's investigating body, the Vake-Saburtalo Court of First Instance, in Tbilisi, ordered that they be placed in pre-trial detention for three months. According to the orders of 5 and 6 August, Mr Shamayev was arrested on 3 August and six other applicants on 6 August 2002. 59. On 6 August 2002, Mr Khanoyev (Khanchukayev), Mr Baymurzayev, Mr Khashiev, Mr Usmanov (Magomadov), Mr Mirjoyev (Gelogayev) and Mr Adayev were placed under investigation on the same charges. On 7 August 2002 the Vake-Saburtalo Court of First Instance ordered that they be placed in pre-trial detention for three months. It appears from those orders that Mr Usmanov (Magomadov) and Mr Mirjoyev (Gelogayev) were arrested on 7 August, Mr Adayev on 5 August and the three other applicants on 6 August 2002. 60. On the basis of those orders, on 6 and 7 August 2002 the applicants were transferred to Tbilisi Prison no. 5, with the exception of Mr Margoshvili, who was placed in the central prison infirmary. On an unspecified later date Mr Adayev was also hospitalised (see paragraph 142 below). According to the detention orders, all the applicants have Russian nationality. 61. On 1 November 2002 the pre-trial detention orders in respect of Mr Margoshvili, Mr Issayev and Mr Kushtanashvili were extended for three months by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. On 4 November 2002 the same court also extended by three months the pre-trial detention orders in respect of Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Gelogayev, Mr Khashiev, Mr Magomadov and Mr Baymurzayev. 62. On 6 August 2002 Mr V.V. Ustinov, Procurator-General of the Russian Federation, travelled to Tbilisi and met his Georgian counterpart. He handed over the extradition request for the applicants. As the latter had been placed under investigation in Georgia and the documents submitted in support of the extradition request were considered inadequate in the light of Georgian legislation and international law, Mr N. Gabrichidze, the Georgian Procurator-General, declined verbally to extradite the applicants (see paragraphs 182 et seq. below). At the same meeting the Georgian Procurator-General's Office asked its Russian counterpart to submit the relevant documents in support of the extradition request, together with assurances as to the treatment the applicants would receive in the event of extradition and confirmation that their rights would be respected. 63. It appears from the file that the Georgian Procurator-General transmitted those demands on the same date in writing. He informed his Russian counterpart that on 6 August 2002 criminal proceedings had been instituted in Georgia against all of the applicants, that seven were being held in pre-trial detention and that the six others would soon be brought before a court for a ruling on their detention. He noted that the extradition request did not contain information on the identity, nationality and home addresses of the persons concerned or documents or the statutory provisions concerning the offences with which they were charged in Russia or duly certified detention orders. The Georgian Procurator-General concluded that, in view of those circumstances, “he [was] unable to examine the extradition request in respect of those individuals”. 64. On 12 and 19 August and 30 September 2002 the Russian authorities sent their Georgian counterparts the required documents, namely: (i) the investigation orders in respect of each of the applicants, issued by the decentralised service of the federal Procurator-General's Office in Chechnya, dated 8 August 2002; (ii) the international search warrant in respect of the applicants, issued by the Russian authorities on 15 August 2002; (iii) certified copies of the provisional detention orders in respect of each of the applicants, issued on 16 August 2002 under Article 108 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure by the Staropromislovsk Court of First Instance (Grozny) on an application by the investigator responsible for the case; (iv) extracts from the case file of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in Russia, setting out the charges against them; (v) photographs; (vi) copies of passports, with photographs; (vii) copies of Form no. 1[4]; (viii) other information on the applicants' nationality and identity. 65. The Georgian Government submitted to the Court only copies of the documents listed under items (i), (ii) and (iii). The documents listed in item (iv) had apparently been classified as “confidential” by the Russian authorities in the interest of the proper administration of justice. 66. According to the orders of 8 August 2002, which were submitted to the Court by the Georgian Government, the applicants were under investigation in Russia for causing bodily harm to employees of the police and security forces (a crime punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty – see Article 317 of the Criminal Code, paragraph 260 below); organising illegal armed groups and participation in such groups, with aggravating circumstances (punishable by a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment under Article 208 § 2 of the Criminal Code); gunrunning with aggravating circumstances (punishable by two to six years' imprisonment under Article 222 § 2 of the Criminal Code); and illegal crossing of the Russian Federation's border in July 2002, with aggravating circumstances (punishable by up to five years' imprisonment under Article 322 § 2 of the Criminal Code). (The same documents, submitted by the Russian Government, are dated 13 August 2002 with regard to Mr Adayev and Mr Vissitov.) 67. As Article 6 of the Georgian Criminal Code prohibits the extradition of an individual to a country in which the crime with which he or she is charged is punishable by the death penalty (see paragraph 256 below), the Georgian Procurator-General's Office asked the Russian authorities to guarantee that that penalty would not be imposed on the applicants. 68. In his letter of 26 August 2002, Mr V.V. Kolmogorov, Russian Acting Procurator-General, informed his Georgian counterpart that an investigation had been opened in Russia after an attack on Russian army units by illegal armed groups in a border area on 27 July 2002. Having learned that thirteen individuals who illegally crossed the border shortly after this attack had been arrested in Georgia, and having questioned three witnesses, the Russian authorities had placed those individuals under investigation. Given that the individuals concerned had been armed when they crossed the border, and having regard to other evidence, the Russian authorities believed that they were the perpetrators of the above attack. Mr Kolmogorov pointed out that the Georgian authorities had stated that they would be prepared to extradite the applicants if the Russian side submitted the necessary documents. Since all of those documents had been handed over on 19 August 2002, the Russian authorities repeated their request for extradition of the individuals concerned on the basis of the Minsk Convention, concluded under the auspices of the Community of Independent States (CIS – see paragraph 266 below). Mr Kolmogorov provided assurances that, given the moratorium on the death penalty in force in Russia since 1996, the individuals concerned would not be sentenced to death. At the same time, he asked that the case file in the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in Georgia be sent to the Russian authorities, who would take responsibility for the subsequent proceedings. 69. On 27 August 2002 Mr V.I. Zaytsev, Russian Deputy Procurator-General, informed the Georgian authorities that a moratorium on the death penalty was in force in Russia and that, pursuant to a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 2 February 1999 (see paragraph 262 below), no one could be sentenced to death by any court in a subject of the Federation. 70. On 22 September 2002 the charges against the applicants in Russia were redefined and extended. The applicants were also placed under investigation for terrorism. The texts of the relevant orders, issued separately in respect of each applicant, are identical, as were those of 8 August 2002 (see paragraph 66 above). 71. In his letter of 27 September 2002, Mr Kolmogorov informed his Georgian counterpart that the applicants had also been placed under investigation for terrorism and banditry with aggravating circumstances, crimes which were punishable by eight to twenty years' imprisonment (Articles 205 § 3 and 209 § 2 of the Criminal Code). He gave assurances that the Russian Procurator-General's Office “[promised] the Georgian authorities that, in accordance with the rules of international law, these individuals [would enjoy] all the defence rights provided by law, including the right to assistance by a lawyer, [and would] not be subjected to torture or to treatment or punishment that was cruel, inhuman or contrary to human dignity”. In addition, he pointed out that “since 1996, a moratorium on the death penalty [had] been in force and that, consequently, the individuals who were to be extradited [would] not risk being sentenced to death”. As in the letter of 26 August 2002, the thirteen applicants are cited by name, without exception. 72. After examining the documents submitted by the Russian authorities, information from the Georgian Ministry of Security and evidence gathered at the time of arrest, the Georgian Procurator-General's Office identified, firstly, Mr Abdul-Vakhab Akhmedovich Shamayev, Mr Khosiin Khamidovich Khadjiev, Mr Khusein Mukhamedovich Aziev, Mr Rezvan Vakhidovich Vissitov and Mr Adlan Lechievich Adayev (the names are spelt as they were written in the extradition orders). In view of the seriousness of the charges brought against them in Russia, the Georgian Deputy Procurator-General signed the extradition orders on 2 October 2002. On the following day Mr P. Mskhiladze, Director of International Relations at the Procurator-General's Office, wrote to the Prisons Department at the Ministry of Justice in order to organise the execution of the orders (see paragraph 178 below). The five applicants were due to be transferred from prison to the airport at 9 a.m. on 4 October 2002. 73. However, on the evening of 3 October 2002, Mr Gabaydze, a lawyer for several of the applicants before the domestic courts, appeared on television claiming that he had obtained alarming information from a confidential source to the effect that the extradition of certain applicants was imminent (see paragraphs 124, 214 and 216 below). The following morning the applicants' lawyers, relatives and friends, and representatives of the Chechen minority in Georgia, blocked off the area around the prison and held a demonstration. 74. At 10.10 p.m. on 4 October 2002 the five applicants were handed over to representatives of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) inside the perimeter of Tbilisi Airport. The applicants' representatives have submitted footage of certain scenes of the extradition, broadcast on the Georgian Rustavi-2 channel on the evening of 4 October 2002. Four individuals are seen being hauled onto an aeroplane by Georgian special troops, who yank the prisoners' chins up in a harsh manner for the cameras. Mr Shamayev, Mr Adayev, Mr Vissitov and Mr Khadjiev are identifiable from the photographs in the Court's possession (see paragraph 20 above). Mr Aziev is not seen at any point. Mr Khadjiev has an injury to the neck and red marks around his jaw. Mr Vissitov is injured in the left eye. However, it is impossible to assess the extent of their injuries from the recording, which also shows the applicants' arrival in Russia. The extradited men, wearing blindfolds, are shown being removed from the plane by uniformed masked men, one on each side of the prisoners, who are being held bent double with their arms crossed behind their backs and their heads pointing downwards. 75. The recording ends with the following words, spoken by a Georgian journalist: “...Unless the Georgian authorities provide rapid proof that they have not handed over innocent unidentified individuals to Russia, it will be quite obvious that this extradition is a gift to Mr Putin on the eve of the Summit of the member States [of the Community of Independent States]” (held in Chişinău on 6 and 7 October 2002). 76. On 8 October 2002 Mr Ustinov informed the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court that the Russian authorities had provided their Georgian counterparts with all the necessary guarantees concerning the applicants' treatment in the event of extradition. In his words, “five of the thirteen Chechen terrorists having been handed over, the Georgian side [was] unnecessarily delaying the extradition of the others, on the sole ground that their identity had to be established”. 77. In his letter of 16 October 2002, the Russian Deputy Procurator-General thanked the Georgian authorities “for granting the request to extradite five terrorists”. He claimed that the applicants had been examined by doctors on their arrival in Russia, “their health [had been] found to be satisfactory”, lawyers had been “assigned”, the investigation was being conducted “in strict conformity with the requirements of the legislation on Russian criminal procedure” and that “documents [existed] proving that they [had] Russian nationality”. He repeated the assurance, “provided to the Georgian authorities on numerous occasions”, that, “in accordance with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and of Protocol No. 6, these persons [would] not be sentenced to the death penalty and [would] not be subjected to torture or to inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment”. Furthermore, measures to identify the non-extradited applicants from photographs had made it possible to identify them as the perpetrators of the attack against the Russian army on 27 July 2002 in the Itum-Kalinsk district (Chechen Republic). Promising that “other comprehensive identification procedures [would be] conducted after their extradition”, the Russian Deputy Procurator-General repeated the request for extradition of the applicants still held in Tbilisi, in accordance with Articles 56, 67 and 80 of the Minsk Convention. 78. On 28 October 2002 the Russian Procurator-General's Office again sent the Georgian authorities the judicial investigation orders in respect of Mr Gelogayev (named as Mirjoyev), Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev, and sought their extradition. (The lawyers point out that by this date the three individuals in question had already denied that those surnames, originally given to the Georgian authorities, were theirs.) 79. In his reply of 29 October 2002, the Georgian Procurator-General indicated that the names which appeared in the provisional detention orders issued by the Russian court against the eight applicants held in Tbilisi were not their real surnames and that the applicants had to be identified before their extradition could be agreed. He explained that “in contrast to the names of the five individuals extradited on 4 October 2002”, there were “serious doubts” as to the names of the six prisoners wanted by the Russian authorities and that the seventh and eighth prisoners referred to by the surnames Tepsayev and Bayssarov were in fact named Margoshvili and Kushtanashvili. They had been born in Georgia, not Chechnya. The Procurator-General regretted that “the Russian authorities [were] insisting on the extradition of Mr Tepsayev and Mr Baymurzayev, when they knew full well that Tepsayev was not Tepsayev and Baymurzayev was not Baymurzayev”. In his opinion, this also raised doubts concerning the veracity of the information provided by the Russian authorities with regard to the six other applicants. 80. On 21 November 2002 Mr Gelogayev, Mr Magomadov, Mr Kushtanashvili, Mr Issayev, Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Baymurzayev and Mr Khashiev contacted the President of Georgia and the Speaker of the Georgian parliament. They asked not to be extradited to Russia, claiming that they were “absolutely certain that they would be subjected to torture and to inhuman treatment by the Russian military and other authorities, and that they would be shot without being brought before any court”. 81. In a statement of 15 October 2002 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the “Chechen Republic of Ichkeria” declared that on 5 October 2002 Mr Khusein Aziev, an extradited applicant, had died as a result of the ill-treatment inflicted on him. On 18 October 2002 the Russian Government informed the Court that this information was false and claimed that all the extradited applicants, including Mr Aziev, were safe and sound, were in good health and were being held in good conditions in a SIZO in the Stavropol region. On 23 October 2002 the Court asked the Russian Government to send it the exact address of this establishment so that it could correspond with the applicants (see paragraph 15 above). 82. The applicants' representatives have misgivings about the credibility of the Russian Government's response. They refer to a certain Khusein Yusupov, an individual of Chechen origin who was detained at the Georgian Ministry of Security until the end of September 2002, who subsequently seemed to have disappeared. According to the Georgian authorities, he was released. According to Mr Yusupov's mother, who went to meet him on the day he was due to be released, her son did not leave the prison. The lawyers believe that he could have been “informally” handed over to the Russian authorities in order to “replace” the deceased applicant. They drew the Court's attention to the ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on Mr Aziev prior to his extradition (see paragraphs 125 and 135 below). 83. On 28 November 2002, having concluded that Mr Baymurzayev, Mr Mirjoyev and Mr Khashiev were named Alkhanov Khusein Mauladinovich, Gelogayev Ruslan Akhmedovich and Elikhadjiev Rustam Osmanovich respectively and that they were Russian citizens, the Georgian Procurator-General's Office agreed to their extradition to Russia. The extradition order expressly stated that it was to be served on the applicants and that it was to be explained to them that an appeal lay before the courts. 84. On 29 November 2002 the applicants appealed to the Krtsanisi-Mtatsminda Court of First Instance (Tbilisi). Their lawyers pointed out that the extradition request had not been drawn up using their clients' real names and that it included photographs of them taken by the Georgian authorities during their detention in Tbilisi Prison no. 5. They complained that the detention orders in respect of their clients, issued on 16 August 2002 by the Staropromislovsk Court of First Instance (Grozny) (see paragraph 64 above), contained no reference to a maximum length of detention and that the applicants' defence rights had been totally breached in the proceedings which had resulted in those orders. In view of these shortcomings, they sought a refusal of the impugned extradition request. Further, basing their argument on Russia's failure to ratify Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, they concluded that the Russian assurances were scarcely sufficient for the purposes of the European Convention on Extradition. They considered that, in order to be satisfactory, these assurances ought to have come from the President of the Russian Federation. 85. On 5 December 2002 this appeal was dismissed. On 25 December 2002 the Georgian Supreme Court overturned that decision and remitted the case. 86. On 13 March 2003 the court to which the case had been remitted held that the extradition of Mr Khashiev and Mr Gelogayev was legal. For the first time, it was stated before that court that on 27 October 2000 and 1 November 2001 (1 February 2002 according to the Supreme Court – see paragraph 88 below) Mr Baymurzayev and Mr Gelogayev had been granted refugee status in Georgian territory. The Acting Minister for Refugees stated before the court that that status had been granted under the Refugee Act (see paragraph 257 below). Having established that Mr Baymurzayev had never been deprived of his refugee status in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, the court concluded that it was impossible to extradite him to Russia. With regard to Mr Gelogayev, the court noted that, by a decision of 25 November 2002, the Ministry for Refugees had withdrawn his refugee status, on the basis of a letter from the Ministry of the Interior dated 20 November 2002 and a report from the Committee on Refugee Status. 87. Basing its decision on an expert report and on explanations provided by the representatives of the Procurator-General's Office, the court ruled that it was established that the extradition request from the Russian authorities had been accompanied by photographs of the applicants taken on 7 August 2002 by the Georgian authorities, while those individuals were imprisoned in Tbilisi Prison no. 5. According to the court, communication of the photographs to the Russian authorities had been justified since it had been necessary in order to identify the persons concerned. 88. On 16 May 2003 the Supreme Court upheld this decision in so far as it concerned the impossibility of extraditing Mr Baymurzayev. It ordered that Mr Gelogayev's extradition be suspended pending completion of the administrative proceedings instigated by him against the decision of 25 November 2002 to withdraw his refugee status. As to Mr Khashiev, the Supreme Court noted that his photograph, taken by the Georgian authorities, had been sent to the Russian authorities for the purpose of identifying him, but that this had been unsuccessful. Furthermore, the defence submitted a copy of a Russian passport indicating that Mr Khashiev was not in fact named either Khashiev or Elikhadjiev, but Mulkoyev (see paragraphs 83 above and 101 below). At the request of the Georgian Procurator-General's Office, the Russian authorities had apparently checked the authenticity of this copy and had replied on 6 May 2003 that such a passport had never been issued. Given those circumstances, the Supreme Court considered that Mr Khashiev's identity had not been established and decided to suspend his extradition; it sent this part of the case back to the Procurator-General's Office for further investigation. 89. Mr Khanchukayev and Mr Magomadov were tried by the Tbilisi Regional Court for illegally crossing the border and were acquitted on 15 July 2003 on the ground that there was no corpus delicti in their actions. In particular, it was established that both of the applicants had been injured and had been obliged to cross the Russo-Georgian border in circumstances of “dire necessity” in which they were obliged to evade a confrontation with the Russian armed forces and the siege in which they had been trapped since 25 July 2002. The Regional Court found that they had been forced to commit the offence because they had no other option and that “they had naturally considered that what was transgressed [national security, the border, etc.] was less important than what was preserved, namely their own lives”. It was noted that the investigating authorities had not questioned the border guards involved and had prosecuted the two applicants solely on the basis of their own statements. The Regional Court had examined the border guards, who had stated that, at the point where the applicants had crossed into Georgia, the border was not marked, even by a flag, and that as such it was unidentifiable and delimited in an approximate manner by the two States concerned. They confirmed that, at the material time, the areas adjoining the border, and the border itself, were being shelled by the Russian army and that the applicants had offered no resistance whatsoever in handing over their weapons and had requested asylum in Georgia. 90. This judgment was upheld on appeal on 2 December 2003; however, Mr Khanchukayev and Mr Magomadov could not be released, since they had been placed in pre-trial detention on 18 December 2002 in connection with the criminal case arising from acts of violence against State employees during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002 (see paragraphs 96 et seq. below). 91. On 9 October 2003, on the same grounds as in the case of Mr Khanchukayev and Mr Magomadov, the Tbilisi Regional Court acquitted Mr Issayev of illegally crossing the border. In particular, it established that Mr Issayev had two gunshot wounds on his left forearm when he entered Georgia. He had met Mr Khadjiev and Mr Aziev, who were also escaping from Russian shelling, in the forest. All three had sought refuge in the cabin of a Georgian shepherd named Levan. Another group of Chechens had also taken shelter there. Having learned from the shepherd that they were already in Georgian territory, the escapees had sent their host to request help from the Georgian border guards. They had voluntarily handed over their weapons and requested asylum in Georgia. Those elements had been confirmed to the Regional Court by the border guards in question (see paragraph 89 above). 92. The court also established that Mr Issayev's arrest had been brought to the attention of the Russian authorities by the Georgian Ministry of Security. After his arrest, Mr Issayev had corrected the name of his father three times before it was finally ascertained that he was the son of a certain Movli. In line with those changes, the Russian authorities had also amended the documents supporting their extradition request in respect of this applicant. The court considered that “the documents submitted by the Russian prosecution service and included in the case file seemed to have been drawn up in a contrived manner with a view to securing the extradition of the individual concerned”. They did not suggest that this individual “had been known to the Russian law-enforcement agencies ... prior to his arrest in Georgia”. 93. The acquittal was upheld on appeal on 11 December 2003. However, Mr Issayev could not be released because he had been placed under investigation in the criminal proceedings arising from acts of violence against State employees (see paragraphs 96 et seq. below). 94. On 8 April 2003 Mr Kushtanashvili and Mr Margoshvili, Georgian citizens, were acquitted on charges of carrying, handling and transporting weapons illegally. The other aspect of the case (illegally crossing the border and infringing customs regulations) was remitted for additional investigation. Their pre-trial detention was commuted to judicial supervision and they were immediately released. On 20 May 2003 Mr Kushtanashvili was rearrested in the light of the decision of 28 February 2003 ordering that he be placed in pre-trial detention in connection with the case concerning acts of violence against State employees (see paragraphs 96 et seq. below). 95. On 6 February 2004 Mr Gelogayev, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were also acquitted by the Tbilisi Regional Court of crossing the border illegally. On 16 April 2004 the Georgian Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for further consideration. 96. At 9 a.m. on 4 October 2002, in the presence of two witnesses, Mr R. Markelia, investigator, drew up a damage assessment report of cell no. 88, where eleven applicants had been detained before being removed a few hours previously (see paragraph 123 below). Damage was observed: in particular, the furniture had been taken apart and the walls had been damaged. On 9 October 2002 proceedings were instituted. On 1 November 2002 the Procurator-General's Office submitted a number of objects for analysis, with a view to determining whether they had been part of the furnishings in cell no. 88. The expert report, dated 25 December 2002, identified the following objects: stick-shaped pieces of metal and metal discs, removed by hand from the window-bars and the bunk beds in cell no. 88; the foot of the cell ventilator; pieces of brick removed from the cell walls and placed inside a pair of jeans, the legs of which had been knotted; a sharpened spoon embedded in a plastic cigarette lighter to make a knife; a soup spoon, sharpened along one side; and other objects which had been part of the cell and its furnishings. 97. On 29 and 30 November and 16 December 2002 the non-extradited applicants, with the exception of Mr Margoshvili, were charged with premeditated resistance by a group of prisoners involving the use of force against State employees, and with refusing to obey lawful orders from prison warders with the intention of prejudicing the proper functioning of the prison. On 30 November and 16 December 2002 the indictments, together with translations into Russian, were served on the applicants. 98. On 24 May 2004 Mr Kushtanashvili, Mr Magomadov, Mr Issayev and Mr Khanchukayev were convicted at first instance and were each sentenced to four years' imprisonment. According to the judgment, the prisoners in cell no. 88 had seen on television that “certain Chechens” were to be extradited but, not knowing which of them were affected by that measure, they had opposed the prison wardens who tried to remove them from the cell. They were armed with metal objects which had been removed from the bed-frames and plumbing and with projectiles made from pieces of brick wrapped in sheets and clothing. They had caused injury to prison wardens and members of the special forces. On 26 August 2004 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 25 November 2004, ruling on an appeal on points of law by the applicants, the Georgian Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgment and sentenced the applicants to two years and five months' imprisonment. The period spent in detention since their arrest was counted as part of this sentence. Mr Khanchukayev was released on 5 January 2005, Mr Magomadov and Mr Issayev on 6 January 2005 and Mr Kushtanashvili on 18 February 2005. 99. On 6 February 2004, in the same case, Mr Gelogayev, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were convicted at first instance and given a one-year prison sentence. As the length of time spent in pre-trial detention was deducted from this sentence, those three individuals were released immediately. On 16 April 2004 the Supreme Court overturned that judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. Disappearance of Mr Khashiev (Elikhadjiev, Mulkoyev) and Mr Baymurzayev (Alkhanov) subsequent to their release 100. Following their release on 6 February 2004, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev moved in with a relative in Tbilisi; they were joined by Mr Gelogayev. On 16 February 2004 they left the house for an appointment at the Ministry for Refugees, but disappeared before ever arriving there. On 25 February 2004 the Georgian media, citing a Russian agency report, announced that the missing men were being held in a Russian prison in the town of Essentuki, on suspicion of having crossed the Russo-Georgian border illegally. On 5 March 2004 Ms Mukhashavria informed the Court of this and stated that she was anxious about the health of Mr Baymurzayev, who apparently needed an operation on his jaw. She explained that, following their release, the three applicants had not left their residence unless accompanied by their representatives. As the latter had assured them that they had nothing to fear in Tbilisi, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev had dared to venture out alone for the first time on the day in question. 101. On 13 March 2004 the Georgian Government claimed that an investigation by the Ministry of the Interior had ascertained that the two applicants had disappeared on 16 February 2004 at 10.30 a.m. They had subsequently been arrested by the Russian authorities near the village of Larsi (Republic of North Ossetia) for crossing the border illegally. On 29 March 2004 the Russian Government alleged that the two applicants had been arrested in Larsi on 19 February 2004 by the Federal Security Service on the ground that they were on the list of wanted persons. At the time of his arrest, Mr Khashiev had been carrying a false passport in the name of Mulkoyev (see paragraph 88 above). On 20 February 2004 Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev, under the names of Rustam Usmanovich Elikhadjiev and Khusein Mauladinovich Alkhanov, had been placed under investigation and imprisoned in Essentuki Prison, pursuant to a decision by the Staropromislovsk Court (Grozny). Transferred on 6 March 2004 to a SIZO in town A, they had been returned to Essentuki on 22 March 2004 for the purposes of the investigation. 102. On 8 April 2004 the Russian Government submitted photographs of these applicants, of their cells and of the SIZO in town A (shower room, medical unit and kitchen). Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were apparently detained separately; each was held in a cell measuring 16.4 sq. m, equipped with a window, toilet facilities and a radio connection. The cells contained four prisoners, the number they had been designed for. According to Mr Khashiev's “prisoner card”, he had been placed under strict surveillance. The applicants had never complained about their conditions of detention. The photographs showed them face on and from the side, and had been taken in two different rooms which did not appear to be the same as the cells shown in the above-mentioned photographs. 103. According to medical certificates dated 24 March 2004, Mr Khashiev was in good health and had no recent injuries. Mr Baymurzayev was suffering from a broken lower jaw, complicated by osteomyelitis. In 2000 he had received a shrapnel injury to the chin and had had an operation on his jaw in 2002. He had broken the same bone again in 2003. On 12 March 2004 he had undergone an X-ray examination in Russia and on 15 March 2004 he had been examined by a stomatologist, who recommended in-patient surgical treatment. 104. Mr Gelogayev was heard by the Court in Tbilisi and spoke of his distress caused by the disappearance of his two companions. He speculated that they may have been secretly extradited in exchange for certain political concessions obtained by the Georgian President during his first official visit to Russia after his election in January 2004. 105. It appears from documents submitted by the Georgian Government on 19 September 2004 that on 28 March 2004 the Tbilisi procurator's office opened an investigation into the kidnapping of Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev. The Georgian Government offered no explanation on this subject. 106. On 5 and 30 November 2004 Ms Mukhashavria submitted copies of the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic on 14 September and 11 October 2004 respectively in the cases of Mr Khashiev (Mr Elikhadjiev, Mr Mulkoyev) and Mr Baymurzayev (Mr Alkhanov). She claimed to have obtained them with the help of individuals close to the applicants. In the judgments Mr Khashiev is referred to as Elikhadjiev Rustam Usmanovich and Mr Baymurzayev as Alkhanov Khusein Mauladinovich (see paragraph 83 above). The first was cited as having been born in 1980 in Grozny and the second in 1975 in the village of Aki-Yurt in Ingushetia. During the trial Mr Khashiev alleged that he had been arrested on 16 February 2004, not at the Russian border, but on Tbilisi's Rustaveli Avenue. He had then been transferred to Essentuki (see paragraph 101 above). According to the judgments, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were part of an armed group formed in the Pankisi Gorge (Georgia) by a certain Issabayev for the purpose of exterminating members of the federal armed forces in Chechnya and local residents who cooperated with those troops. In July 2002 they had allegedly crossed illegally into the Itum-Kalinsk region in Chechnya, with about sixty members of the armed group in question. On 27 July 2002, surrounded by Russian border guards, the group had opened fire and attacked the guards. Eight Russian soldiers had been killed and several others injured. Given the lack of evidence of their direct participation in that attack, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were acquitted on the charge of terrorism and of the offences set out in Article 205 § 3 and Article 317 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 66 and 71 above). They were also acquitted of the offences listed in Article 188 § 4 and Article 208 § 2 of the same Code (see paragraph 66 above) on the ground that there was no corpus delicti in their actions. Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were convicted of participation in an illegal armed group, crossing the border illegally and of carrying, transporting and handling weapons illegally; they were sentenced to thirteen years' and twelve years' imprisonment respectively, to be served in a closed prison. Mr Khashiev was also convicted of using a false passport in the name of Mulkoyev (see paragraph 101 above). In imposing those sentences, the Supreme Court stated that it took account of the applicants' ages and the fact that they had no criminal record. Mr Baymurzayev's health (serious deformation of the lower jaw) was also taken into consideration. An appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation lay against those judgments. 107. According to the Russian Government, Mr Shamayev, Mr Khadjiev, Mr Vissitov and Mr Adayev were brought before the Stavropol Regional Court for trial “in the summer of 2003”. Mr Aziev was allegedly brought before the same court on 26 August 2003. On 24 February 2004 the Russian Government informed the Court orally in Tbilisi that, on 18 February 2004, the Stavropol Regional Court had delivered judgment against the first four applicants. The prosecution had called for sentences of nineteen years' imprisonment for Mr Shamayev and Mr Khadjiev and eighteen years' imprisonment for Mr Vissitov and Mr Adayev. The court had sentenced Mr Shamayev and Mr Khadjiev to three years' and six years' imprisonment respectively, to be served in an ordinary prison, and had sentenced Mr Vissitov to ten years' imprisonment in a closed prison and Mr Adayev to one year and six months' imprisonment in an ordinary prison. Mr Adayev had been released immediately because he had already been in detention for this length of time. Mr Aziev had requested the assistance of an interpreter and submitted a number of procedural requests, with the result that his case had been severed from that of the others and the investigation in his regard was still ongoing. 108. The Russian Government submitted that they were unable to provide the Court with a copy of the judgment of 18 February 2004. They claimed that, under the new Code of Criminal Procedure adopted by the Russian Duma in accordance with the Council of Europe's recommendations, only the convicted person could obtain a copy of the judgment concerning his or her case. The Government expressed their willingness to cooperate with the Court, but regretted that, on this occasion, such cooperation was impossible on account of the Council of Europe's recommendations. They advised the Court that if it wished to obtain the document in question it should write to the Russian court concerned. The Court learned from a letter of 8 April 2004 from the Russian Government that an appeal had been lodged against the judgment of 18 February 2004 (see paragraph 48 above). In their submissions of 20 July 2004, the Government gave the Court to understand that the appeal court had quashed the judgment in question in its entirety (see paragraph 272 below). 109. On 25 February 2004 the Russian Government submitted to the Court in Tbilisi photographs of the SIZO in town B and of the four extradited applicants' cells, taken on 19 February 2004 (Mr Adayev, the fifth applicant, had been released on the previous day). These photographs show a spacious and well-equipped kitchen and laundry and a shower room. The applicants' cells are large and well lit, and each has a large window. They contain long tables and benches. The toilets are open, but separated by a low wall from the rest of the room. There are sinks with soap and toothpaste, brooms and water tanks in each cell, and heating pipes under the windows. Radio sets can be seen in certain cells. The package from the Government also contained a video cassette. This recording shows the four cells as described above. On the basis of the photographs of the applicants in the Court's possession (see paragraph 20 above), it is possible to identify Mr Shamayev in cell no. 22 and to recognise Mr Khadjiev in cell no. 15. On the other hand, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to spot Mr Vissitov in cell no. 18, given the backlighting and the absence of any close-ups. According to the off-camera voice commenting on the pictures, Mr Aziev had refused to be filmed. Nonetheless, a recording was made of his cell (no. 98) in which the prisoners' faces cannot be made out but their silhouettes can be seen from a distance. In each cell the number of beds is equal to or greater than the number of prisoners present during the filming. 110. Mr Khamzad(t) Movlievich Issiev (Issayev), alias Khamzat Movlitgalievich Issayev, stated that his real name was Khamzat Movlievich Issayev, that he was of Chechen origin and that he had been born on 18 October 1975 in the village of Samachki, in Chechnya. 111. Mr Seibul (Feisul) Bayssarov stated that he was called Giorgi Kushtanashvili, that he was a Georgian citizen who belonged to the Kist ethnic group and that he had been born in the village of Duisi, in the Akhmeta region of Georgia. 112. Mr Aslan Khanoyev stated that his real name was Aslambek Atuievich Khanchukayev, that he was a Russian national of Chechen origin, and that he had been born on 25 February 1981 in the village of Selnovodsk, in Chechnya. 113. Mr Adlan (Aldan) Usmanov stated that he was in fact named Akhmed Lechayevich Magomadov, that he had been born on 4 July 1955 in Pavlodar in Kazakhstan, and that he was of Chechen origin. 114. Mr Ruslan Mirjoyev stated that his real name was Ruslan Akhmedovich Gelogayev, that he was of Chechen origin and that he had been born on 16 July 1958. 115. Mr Tepsayev stated that he was in fact Robinzon Margoshvili, son of Parola, that he was a Georgian citizen of Kist origin, and that he had been born on 19 April 1967 in the village of Duisi, in the Akhmeta region of Georgia. 116. With the exception of Mr Margoshvili, who was detained in the prison infirmary (see paragraph 60 above), those applicants confirmed that they had known the extradited applicants in prison and had been held with them in the same cell. The photographs of the applicants, submitted by the Governments on 23 and 25 November 2002, were shown to them for identification. The names on the photographs had previously been covered over by the Court's Registry. 117. Each of the applicants (except for Mr Margoshvili) recognised himself in the relevant photograph submitted by the Georgian Government. Mr Robinzon Margoshvili (formerly Ruslan Tepsayev) was identified by the other applicants as Ruslan (four times) and Ruslan Tepsayev (once). 118. With regard to the two missing applicants, namely, Mr Timur (Ruslan) Baymurzayev alias Khusein Alkhanov, and Mr Islam Khashiev alias Rustam Elikhadjiev alias Bekkhan Mulkoyev (see paragraph 43 above), the first was identified as Baymurzayev (once), Timur (once), Khusein (twice) and Khusein Alkhanov (once). The second was named as Islam (twice), Bekkhan (twice), Mulkoyev (once) and Bekkhan Mulkoyev (once). 119. With regard to the extradited applicants, four applicants identified Abdul-Vakhab and one applicant identified Abdul-Vakhab Shamayev in the photograph submitted by the Russian Government as that of Mr Abdul-Vakhab Shamayev. The photograph of Mr Khusein Khadjiev was identified as Khusein (three times), Khusein Khadjiev (once) and Khusein Nakhadjayev (once). Three applicants identified Khusein Aziev and two applicants identified Khusein in the photograph submitted as that of Mr Khusein Aziev. Mr Adlan (Aslan) Adayev (Adiev) was identified as Aslan Adayev (twice) and Aslan (three times). On the other hand, all five applicants identified the person in the photograph submitted by the Russian Government as Mr Rizvan (Rezvan) Vissitov as a certain Musa. 120. By virtue of the authorities to act submitted on 9 October 2002, the six non-extradited applicants were represented before the Court by Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili. On the basis of the authorities to act dated 4 August 2003, those applicants, with the exception of Mr Margoshvili, were also represented by Ms Kintsurashvili. 121. During the proceedings in Tbilisi, at which only Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Kintsurashvili were present, five applicants confirmed that, with the assistance of Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili, they had lodged an application with the Court against Georgia and Russia in order to challenge their extradition and have it stayed. They stated that they wished to pursue their application and continue to be represented by the same lawyers in the proceedings that would ensue before the Court (or, in some cases, by the lawyers then present in the room). As he had only a very basic knowledge of Georgian, Mr Margoshvili, the sixth applicant who was heard, had difficulty in understanding the questions put by the Court. However, he maintained that he was complaining about his arrest under the Chechen name of Tepsayev, as he was merely a simple Georgian shepherd. Mr Margoshvili confirmed that he had applied to the Court, that the lawyers present in the room were his representatives and that he wished to pursue his complaint. 3. The events concerning the extradition of 4 October 2002 (a) Facts as submitted by the applicants who were heard by the Court (i) Facts common to all the applicants 122. Five of the applicants who appeared were heard by the Court in Russian with interpretation into English, one of the Court's two official languages. Having stated that he was unable to read Russian, Mr Margoshvili, the sixth applicant, took the oath in Georgian; he also expressed himself in that language. 123. During the few weeks before 4 October 2002, eleven applicants had found themselves detained in the same cell (no. 88) in Tbilisi Prison no. 5. A total of fourteen prisoners had been held in the cell. Mr Adayev and Mr Margoshvili, the twelfth and thirteenth applicants, had been in the prison infirmary at the time. 124. The applicants had had a television set in their cell. Although rumours had been circulating for a while about their possible extradition to Russia, it was only on 3 October 2002 that they learned from the 11 p.m. news bulletin on Rustavi-2 that the extradition of five or six of their number was imminent (see paragraph 216 below). No names having been given, they were unaware of who exactly would be affected by that operation. They had received no prior information or official notification on this matter. The applicants understood that the information gleaned from the television was accurate when, between 3 and 4 a.m., prison wardens arrived and asked them to leave the cell so that it could be disinfected (or searched, according to Mr Kushtanashvili). The applicants categorically refused to comply, with the result that the prison governor named four individuals and asked them to leave the cell. In response, the applicants asked that nothing be done until daybreak and that their lawyers be summoned; this request was refused. About fifteen hooded members from the Georgian Ministry of Justice's special forces then entered the cell and removed the applicants one by one. They used truncheons and applied electric shocks. The applicants were beaten as they lay on the floor in the corridor. The four applicants affected by the extradition order were immediately removed and the others were placed in solitary confinement. Around 4 a.m. Mr Adayev, the fifth applicant against whom an extradition order had been issued, was transferred directly from the prison infirmary. 125. All of the applicants heard claimed that they had put up only verbal resistance to leaving the cell. They complained that they had been beaten, insulted and “treated like animals” by the special troops. Following this incident, Mr Issayev had two fractured ribs and an eye injury, the scar from which was still visible. Mr Kushtanashvili sustained injuries from truncheon blows. Mr Khanchukayev sustained extensive bruising. Mr Magomadov had a broken tooth, a laceration to the ear, an injury to the frontal bone and extensive bruising on his back and legs. Mr Gelogayev had extensive bruising on his body and other injuries (to the shoulder and cheek) and had suffered an inflammation of the left kidney, injuries which he himself described as “trivial” (see paragraphs 200, 201 and 211 below). All of the prisoners were injured more or less seriously. In particular, the applicants referred to broken ribs and a fractured shoulder in some cases, and blood-splattered heads in others. According to Mr Kushtanashvili and Mr Khanchukayev, the applicants who were to be extradited were given the most severe beatings. Mr Issayev, Mr Magomadov and Mr Khanchukayev had heard that Mr Aziev had died as a result of his injuries. According to Mr Gelogayev, Mr Aziev must have had a broken spine, since he was no longer able to walk and was dragged along the corridor by two members of the special troops. He also appeared to have an eye turned inside out. According to Mr Gelogayev, the photograph of Mr Aziev allegedly taken by the Russian authorities after his arrest could have been a copy of an old photograph. 126. Once placed in solitary confinement, the non-extradited applicants were examined by a doctor, who listed each prisoner's injuries in writing. He merely measured the extent of their bruises with a ruler and did not provide treatment. The applicants did not subsequently receive any other medical care. 127. None of the applicants confirmed that he had been informed by a member of the Procurator-General's Office that extradition proceedings were pending against him. They all claimed to have received visits from numerous persons while in prison (officially assigned lawyers, investigators and prosecutors), whose names they did not remember. They remembered having met once, in the absence of their lawyers, a man and a young woman (see paragraphs 162-66 below) who asked them to sign documents drawn up in Russian (in Georgian, according to Mr Kushtanashvili), which they refused to do. 128. With the exception of Mr Kushtanashvili and Mr Margoshvili, the applicants all claimed that they had entered Georgia in search of refuge from the armed combat in Chechnya. They denied having been armed when they crossed the border. They had not been arrested at the border, but had voluntarily given themselves up to the Georgian border guards, from whom they had sought assistance. The latter had tended to their wounds before calling for a helicopter to transport them to Tbilisi. 129. The applicants confirmed that they had all supplied false names to the Georgian authorities. With the exception of Mr Kushtanashvili and Mr Margoshvili (see paragraphs 135 and 143 below), they had acted in this way to avoid extradition to Russia and to prevent family members and friends who were still in Russia from being endangered should they (the applicants) fall into the hands of the Russian authorities. Mr Issayev alleged that he was weary of ten years of war in Chechnya and that, if it would put him out of danger, he “[would] willingly change not only his name, but also his appearance”. He was convinced that he had escaped extradition on account of his false identity. 130. Mr Gelogayev and Mr Khanchukayev indicated that their officially assigned lawyers (including Ms Magradze, according to Mr Khanchukayev) and an investigator from the Ministry of Security had advised the applicants to say that they were armed when they crossed the border, since this would ensure that they were kept in Georgia pending trial. The applicants had followed this advice. 131. The applicants all denied categorically that they had put up any resistance to State employees during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002. (ii) Specific facts submitted by each of the applicants 132. Mr Issayev stated that he was opposed to his extradition to Russia on the ground that “no distinction is made there between peaceful civilians, terrorists and fighters”. When speaking with the representatives of the prosecution service who visited them in prison, he and his fellow prisoners had always expressed their wish not to be extradited to Russia and their fear of being subjected to ill-treatment in that country. They had asked to be tried in Georgia. They had had no access to the extradition papers. According to Mr Issayev (and also Mr Kushtanashvili), the officially assigned lawyers, the investigator and the representatives of the prosecutor's office had asked the applicants to tell them their real names so that they could help them avoid extradition. Those who had complied had been extradited immediately. 133. Prior to his arrest, in August 2002, Mr Issayev had, he claimed, attempted unsuccessfully to obtain refugee status in Georgia. 134. Mr Kushtanashvili claimed that he was Georgian (of Kist origin) and was a shepherd in the area bordering Chechnya. When the region was being shelled by the Russian armed forces in August 2002, he had met seven injured Chechens who were fleeing. He had descended the mountain slopes on the border with them and taken them to a shepherds' hut. He himself had sustained a head injury that night. He repeatedly claimed not to have clear memories of the events in question on account of this injury. 135. Mr Kushtanashvili explained that, since he had no money, he had given the Georgian authorities and doctors a false Chechen name in order to pass for a fugitive and thus receive free medical care. He did not believe that his Georgian nationality represented an obstacle to extradition and considered that he was still in danger on account of his Chechen origins. In a letter sent to the Court on 13 November 2002, he alleged that, during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002, the applicants had asked to see their lawyers before leaving the cell as requested. The prison governor had replied that “neither lawyer nor investigator” would turn up and that “[they should] leave the cell voluntarily before [he used] force”. In the same letter Mr Kushtanashvili also claimed that Mr Aziev had received a violent blow to the head and that one of his eyes had practically come out of its socket. He had seen him for the last time when a member of the special troops “was dragging him along the corridor like a corpse”. 136. Mr Khanchukayev stated that, shortly after his arrest, “extradition started to be mentioned”. The applicant, who was afraid of being tortured in Russia, had signed papers, the content of which he could not remember, in the hope of being tried in Georgia and avoiding extradition. In certain cases the applicants had allegedly been threatened with extradition if they refused to sign. After 4 October 2002 he had written to the Georgian President asking him not to authorise his extradition (see paragraph 80 above). He admitted that he was still afraid of extradition and that he lived in a state of uncertainty. At the initial stage of the proceedings before the Court, this applicant claimed that he could not return to Russia on account of the “genocide of the Chechen people” being perpetrated “by Russia throughout the country”. 137. Mr Khanchukayev did not recognise the explanatory statement of 23 August 2002 which, according to Mr Darbaydze, he had refused to sign (see paragraphs 163-64 below). 138. Mr Magomadov claimed that he did not know on which side of the border he had been injured, since the border line was not marked in the area in question (see paragraph 89 above). After being knocked out by a shell wound to the head, he had been carried by his comrades. A Georgian general had arrived by helicopter and had introduced himself as commandant of the border troops. He had promised the applicants that he would report the facts to the Georgian President in person and that they would be given refugee status. The general had previously given orders to the effect that the applicants were to receive hospital treatment. 139. During the meeting with a man and young woman from the Procurator-General's Office (see paragraphs 162-66 below), the applicants had been asked to sign documents without being informed of their contents. All of the non-extradited applicants had met those individuals, but in small groups. Mr Magomadov himself had been brought before the two members of the prosecution service in the company of Aslan (Khanoyev alias Khanchukayev) and Bekkhan (Khashiev alias Mulkoyev) (see paragraph 419 below). Mr Magomadov claimed that he still feared extradition. 140. Mr Gelogayev claimed that he had held refugee status in Georgia since February 2002 (see paragraph 86 above) and had been granted this status in the Akhmeta region, which bordered Chechnya. He had then left legally for Chechnya, travelling via Baku (Azerbaijan), in the hope of bringing his family to Georgia. Once in Chechnya, he had begun looking for a family member who had been missing for more than a year, and had arrived in the Itum-Kalinsk region. There, he had witnessed armed combat between the Russian federal army and the Chechen fighters, who had been surrounded on 25 July 2002. Georgia had been the only way out. He had received a shrapnel wound to the leg but had nonetheless walked as far as the Georgian border, which he had crossed on 3 August 2002. He had requested asylum from the Georgian soldiers who arrived on the scene by helicopter. He had been hospitalised and operated on in Tbilisi, then transferred to a prison infirmary two days later. 141. Mr Margoshvili stated that in August 2002 he had been wounded while watching his flock in pastureland near the border. He did not know whether he had been wounded by Georgians, Russians or Chechens. After being taken to Tbilisi, he was treated in the prison infirmary, where he was detained for three months. He was informed that he had been arrested because he was carrying weapons. He claimed that he had not been imprisoned “with a weapon, but with a quilted jacket and shepherd's boots”. 142. Mr Margoshvili confirmed that he had been in the same infirmary ward as Mr Adayev, one of the five extradited applicants. He did not mention a television set or other information source that would have enabled Mr Adayev to learn, as the other extradited applicants had, that he was likely to be handed over to the Russian authorities in the very near future. At about 4 a.m. on 4 October 2002 Mr Adayev had been taken away, after getting up and following the members of the hospital staff without a word. Masked men were waiting for him in the hospital courtyard. During their stay in the infirmary, Mr Adayev had frequently asked Mr Margoshvili to cut out his tongue, arguing that this would help him to endure questioning more easily if he were extradited. Mr Margoshvili had firmly refused to do so. 143. Mr Margoshvili claimed that he had not assumed a false name of his own volition. Having been taken to hospital in a serious condition, he learned on recovering consciousness that he was being referred to as Mr Tepsayev. At first he had been happy to receive free medical treatment on the strength of this name, but had then rapidly challenged this identity in the infirmary and subsequently before a judge. (b) Facts as submitted by the State employees (i) The prison staff 144. The Court heard Mr A. Dalakishvili, in-house inspector at Tbilisi Prison no. 5 (who was on duty on the night of 3 to 4 October 2002), Mr Buchukuri, employee of the Ministry of Justice's Prisons Department (who was also on duty that night), Mr E. Kerdikoshvili, chief inspector of the Prisons Department's service responsible for transporting foreign nationals, and Mr N. Chikviladze, employee of the Prisons Department, and head of security at Prison no. 1. 145. Those individuals all said that they had not been officially informed of the applicants' imminent extradition and that they had learned later, on the morning of 4 October 2002, that five Chechen prisoners were to be extradited. Mr Buchukuri and Mr Dalakishvili alleged that, as they had been on duty, they were unable to watch television to keep themselves informed. According to Mr Chikviladze, only the prison governor, his deputies and the head of the prison secretariat (special division) had been informed of the applicants' imminent transfer. He had learned from the media that four or five Chechen prisoners were to be extradited, but none of the prison staff had been told their names. 146. The above-mentioned persons confirmed that thirteen or fourteen Chechen prisoners were held in the same cell. According to Mr Tchikviladze, the decision to keep these prisoners together had been based on their religious convictions, so that they would not be hindered in carrying out their daily rites. 147. At about 4 a.m. on 4 October 2002, the above-mentioned prison staff were informed that a loud noise was coming from cell no. 88. Mr Dalakishvili instructed a warden to find out what was happening. The latter looked through the peephole in the cell door and saw that the prisoners were dismantling beds and shouting in a foreign language. According to Mr Chikviladze, after a certain period the warden was no longer able to observe what was going on, as the prisoners had covered over the peephole from the inside. Mr Dalakishvili submitted a written report on the situation to the prison governor, who was still in his office. At the latter's request, Mr Dalakishvili, Mr Buchukuri and Mr Chikviladze, accompanied by other members of staff and the deputy governor, went to the cell to see what was happening. The deputy governor ordered that the cell be opened. According to Mr Dalakishvili, they hoped to talk to the applicants. When the door was opened, they found the cell in chaos, heard shouts and saw that bits of metal and bricks were being thrown in their direction. Mr Chikviladze shouted an order to close the door quickly. He asked that it be left closed until such time as he had reported the situation to his superiors in the Prisons Department. Mr Dalakishvili, who did not understand the reason for such violence, believed that a riot was about to begin and increased the number of wardens on the floor in question. 148. Returning to the prison's administrative wing, Mr Chikviladze saw that the director of the Prisons Department was already there, together with about ten or so other people. He was then officially informed that four prisoners were to be removed with a view to their extradition. A vehicle was apparently ready in a neighbouring courtyard and the airport authorities had been informed. Accompanied by the director of the Prisons Department, the prison governor and their deputies, the wardens again gathered in front of the cell. The prison governor entered first, with four sealed files under his arm, one for each of the prisoners affected by the extradition order. The others followed him into the cell. According to Mr Kerdikoshvili, the prisoners were standing on their beds and throwing bowls, plates and other objects at them. The governor informed them that an internal measure was to be implemented in the cell and that the prisoners were to leave it. According to Mr Chikviladze, the governor mentioned the need to search the room. The prisoners categorically refused to obey and launched a direct attack. 149. The wardens heard by the Court confirmed that all the applicants were armed with pieces of metal which had been removed from the beds, metal grills which they had removed from the windows and trousers filled with bricks and tied at the end of the legs, which were being used as projectiles. 150. In this connection Mr Chikviladze explained that Prison no. 5 was housed in a building that had been constructed in 1887, and that the walls were so eroded that bricks could be pulled out by hand. Mr Dalakishvili also stated that the walls were in a state of disrepair and that bricks could be removed using one's bare hands. Having subsequently participated in drawing up the damage assessment report (see paragraph 96 above), Mr Chikviladze noted that the cell walls had been damaged and that the metal bed-frames were in several pieces. The water pipe above the sink had apparently been pulled out of the wall. 151. Since the prison governor's arrival in the cell had led to an open attack, masked members of the special troops, who had previously been posted in the staircase, entered the premises at the governor's request. Mr Dalakishvili and Mr Chikviladze considered that the use of special troops had been necessary in view of the scale of the resistance put up by the prisoners. They both agreed that hand-to-hand combat had taken place between the prisoners and members of the special troops. According to Mr Buchukuri, the special troops, who had been placed at the prison administration's disposal in case of necessity, usually carried a truncheon each and could hardly enter the prison armed in any other way. 152. According to Mr Dalakishvili, the applicants had heard rumours about the extradition order from the television. Mr Chikviladze supposed that they could have kept mobile phones illegally in their cell or could have listened to the radio. In addition, certain neighbouring cells contained television sets and their occupants could have passed on the news to the applicants without difficulty. 153. Mr Dalakishvili alleged that, on entering the cell behind the prison governor, he had been injured on the elbow and knee by “projectiles” fabricated on the spot by the prisoners (see paragraph 205 below). He nonetheless returned to his office, where the non-extradited prisoners had been taken for a check-up. Mr Dalakishvili observed that all of the applicants were covered in dust, but no one was bleeding. He stated that if Mr Magomadov had had a lacerated ear he would have noticed it (see paragraph 125 above). As he himself had not noted any injury and the applicants had not asked for medical assistance, Mr Dalakishvili had not been required to call a doctor at that point. Since the prisoners who were to be extradited had been led away immediately, he had not seen them again in his office and therefore had not seen Mr Aziev. 154. At the end of his shift, on coming across demonstrators outside the prison, Mr Dalakishvili learned that prisoners had been extradited. Given his position, he had been surprised that the authorities had not informed him so that, as was customary, he could inform the prisoners concerned on the day prior to their extradition. He explained to the Court that, under normal circumstances, a written, signed and stamped notification was sent to him by the head of the prison secretariat which managed the prisoners' personal files; Mr Dalakishvili's role was to check the documents for which he was responsible and to inform the individual concerned of the time of departure, so that he or she would have time to prepare. This procedure had not been followed in the instant case. 155. Mr Buchukuri claimed that he had been wounded in the foot by a piece of metal (see paragraph 204 below), that his wound had bled and that he had immediately gone to the prison administration's premises for treatment. Although his wound was not serious, it had required treatment for approximately ten days. 156. Mr Kerdikoshvili stated that, on arriving at the prison, he had learned that the prisoners were refusing to leave their cell, but that no one had explained to him why they were refusing to do so or why they had to be moved. Having followed the prison governor into the cell, he had been injured on the hand (see paragraph 204 below) and had immediately gone downstairs to the infirmary. Other wardens had also been injured and the prison doctor had provided medical treatment. 157. According to Mr Chikviladze, two or three prisoners, armed with pieces of metal, climbed to the top of the bunk beds when the prison governor entered the cell. One of them took aim at Mr Chikviladze several times, but failed to hit him. A member of the special troops then pushed Mr Chikviladze out of the way for his own safety. The most violent prisoners had been the four individuals whose sealed files the governor had brandished; two other prisoners had attempted unsuccessfully to calm them down. 158. Mr Chikviladze considered it likely that, like the State employees, the prisoners could have been injured, given the hand-to-hand fighting that had taken place in the cell. (ii) A member of the special troops from the Ministry of Justice 159. Mr Z. Sheshberidze explained that the special troops were based not far from Prison no. 5, which they could reach in ten minutes if they ran. On the night in question he and about fifteen of his colleagues had been instructed to defuse the situation in cell no. 88. Unaware of the reason for the disorder, the group had been positioned in staircases near the cell, from where noise and shouting in a foreign language could be heard. The prison governor had entered the cell, but had returned a few minutes later and asked the troops to intervene. They had complied and had performed their task “after encountering limited resistance”. The prisoners had been armed with pieces of metal and missile-like objects made from trousers containing a solid mass. Mr Sheshberidze stated that he and his colleagues had indeed been wearing masks, in line with the regulations. On the other hand, they had not worn special vests or any other protective equipment. Armed only with rubber truncheons, they had not carried electric batons or other weapons. They had made the prisoners lie down in the corridor and had handed them over to the prison wardens before leaving the building. Mr Sheshberidze had learned from the television that the applicants had been removed from the cell in order to be extradited. 160. Mr Sheshberidze claimed that he had sustained a small injury (see paragraph 204 below). He denied the allegation that he and his colleagues had beaten the applicants mercilessly and insulted them. (iii) Representatives of the Procurator-General's Office 161. The Court questioned Mr L. Darbaydze and Ms A. Nadareishvili, trainee prosecutors at the Procurator-General's Office at the relevant time, Mr P. Mskhiladze, director of international relations at the Procurator-General's Office, and Mr N. Gabrichidze, former Georgian Procurator-General. 162. Mr Darbaydze explained that, under the supervision of Mr Mskhiladze, his superior, he had been responsible for various tasks in connection with the disputed extraditions. In particular, Mr Mskhiladze had asked him to visit the applicants in prison, to inform them that the issue of their extradition was being examined by the Procurator-General's Office and to request explanations concerning their nationality. He had carried out this visit on 23 August 2002 with his fellow trainee, Ms Nadareishvili, and without the lawyers being present, since “it was not official questioning, but a request for information”. On that date they met only five applicants. 163. Mr Darbaydze had first spoken with Mr Khanchukayev in Russian in a separate room. The latter had provided information orally, but had refused to sign the corresponding document that would provide formal confirmation of his remarks (see paragraph 137 above). On being returned to the room where the other prisoners were being held, Mr Khanchukayev had said something to them in Chechen. The prisoners then collectively refused to “provide the required explanations and sign the relevant document”, on the ground that they were not assisted by a lawyer and a Chechen interpreter. 164. The document that Mr Khanchukayev had refused to sign was an explanatory statement intended for the Procurator-General. It contained the applicant's assertions to the effect that he was Chechen and had been born in Grozny in 1981; had arrived in Georgia on 4 August 2002 and been arrested by the Georgian authorities; had been held for a few days in the Ministry of Security's investigation prison then transferred to Prison no. 5 in Tbilisi; and had been informed at the time of his arrest that he had been arrested for crossing the border illegally. The following sentence can be read at the bottom of this piece of paper: “The prisoner refused to sign this document and requested the assistance of a lawyer.” The document had been drawn up by Mr L. Darbaydze, trainee prosecutor. According to the minutes of the meeting, signed only by Mr Darbaydze and Ms Nadareishvili, they had unsuccessfully attempted “to obtain an explanatory statement from the applicant in connection with his extradition”. 165. Following this refusal to communicate, Mr Darbaydze postponed the discussion in order to seek the assistance of an interpreter. Mr P. Mskhiladze, his superior, arranged with the Ministry of Security's team of investigators (see paragraph 190 below) that, following an interview scheduled for 13 September 2002, Mr Darbaydze would be able to meet the applicants. Mr Darbaydze thus received an assurance that lawyers and a Chechen-speaking interpreter would be present at the meeting. 166. On 13 September 2002, accompanied by his colleague Ms Kherianova, Mr Darbaydze went to the prison. He met Mr T. Saydayev, an interpreter hired by the Ministry of Security (see paragraph 189 below), and explained to him that, “on account of an ongoing extradition procedure, [he wished] to receive information from the Chechen prisoners that would enable their nationality to be established”. The interpreter had translated these remarks, but, since he did not speak Chechen, Mr Darbaydze had been unable to assess the accuracy of the interpretation. In response, the applicants reiterated their refusal to provide information and to sign the corresponding documents, which had been drawn up in Russian. Nonetheless, the documents were read out to them. 167. As the applicants' representatives had indicated that Mr Darbaydze's name did not appear on either of the two “visitors' logs (citizens, lawyers and investigators) for Prison no. 5” covering the periods of 5 August to 12 September and 13 September to 17 October 2002 respectively, Mr Darbaydze explained that on 23 August and 13 September 2002 his name had not been entered in those logs but in the prison's “register of access to the investigation room”. Since prosecutors – unlike visitors, lawyers and investigators – had no need of a pass and could enter the prison on the strength of their professional badge alone, he did not believe that his name could have been entered in the visitors' log mentioned by the lawyers. By the same token, his name did not appear in the “register of requests to bring a prisoner [from his or her cell]” because, on the two dates in question, he had joined the applicants in the investigation room, to which they had been conducted at the request of the Ministry of Security's investigators (see paragraph 190 below). 168. Mr Darbaydze explained that the Ministry of Justice, which was responsible for executing extradition orders, had been informed immediately of the decision of 2 October 2002 (see paragraph 178 below). On the same date Mr Mskhiladze had personally informed the applicants' domestic lawyers by telephone and, furthermore, had served the written extradition orders on them. Mr Darbaydze seemed to remember going to the lawyers' offices for that purpose. 169. According to Mr Darbaydze, at the material time neither the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure nor any regulatory measure governed the procedure to be followed in lodging an appeal against an extradition order. Article 259 § 4 of the above-mentioned Code alluded to it only vaguely (see paragraph 254 below). This loophole had been remedied by the Georgian Supreme Court's case-law in the Aliev case (see paragraph 258 below). 170. Mr Darbaydze stated that, given the lawyers' criticism that neither they nor their clients had been informed of the extradition proceedings and orders, he had contacted Mr Saydayev in December 2002 and had asked him to certify by affidavit that he had indeed gone to the prison on 13 September 2002 and informed the applicants of the extradition proceedings against them. Mr Darbaydze produced the affidavit in question before the Court (see paragraph 196 below). 171. Ms Nadareishvili confirmed that she had been responsible for the extradition case in question within the Procurator-General's Office. On 23 August 2002, together with Mr Darbaydze, she had met five of the applicants in the investigation room of Tbilisi's Prison no. 5. Given those five individuals' refusal to cooperate, she and her colleague had decided against asking that the other applicants be brought to them, as originally planned. Ms Nadareishvili and Mr Darbaydze wished to obtain information about the applicants' dates and places of birth, and their nationalities. They informed the applicants that they were working on the question of their extradition for the Procurator-General's Office and that they were not investigators. The applicants had initially pretended not to speak Russian but had subsequently stated in that language that they did not wish to return to Russia and that some of them had Georgian nationality. This conversation took place without a lawyer or an interpreter. 172. With regard to the fact that her name did not appear in the prison's visitors' log, Ms Nadareishvili claimed not to know the procedure for access to the prison, since she had visited it for the first and last time on 23 August 2002. 173. Mr Mskhiladze, who was Mr Darbaydze's and Ms Nadareishvili's hierarchical superior, explained that the Georgian Procurator-General's Office had not been satisfied with the documents submitted by the Russian authorities in support of the extradition request concerning the applicants; those documents had been handed over during Mr Ustinov's visit to Georgia (see paragraphs 62 and 63 above). Confirming the facts set out in paragraphs 62-64, 67-69 and 71-72 above, Mr Mskhiladze emphasised that the Georgian authorities had asked their Russian counterparts for firm assurances concerning the treatment that would await the applicants in the event of extradition. He pointed out that those had not been general assurances, but individual guarantees in respect of each applicant, cited by name in the relevant letters. Given that the assurances had come from the Russian Procurator-General's Office and that the Office had the role of prosecutor during criminal trials in Russia, the Georgian authorities had every reason to believe that the death penalty would not be sought in respect of the applicants. They had also taken into account that a moratorium on the death penalty had been in force in Russia since 1996 and that the imposition of such a sanction had been prohibited by the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2 February 1999. Beset by “certain doubts”, the Georgian authorities had required the same type of assurance with regard to inhuman or degrading treatment. It was only after it had obtained satisfactory assurances in that respect that the Georgian Procurator-General's Office had begun examining the extradition request. 174. Without denying that the Procurator-General's Office had sent the Russian authorities photographs of the applicants which had been taken in Georgia, Mr Mskhiladze firmly denied that the Russian side had used those photographs in their extradition request or in support of that request. The Russian authorities had indeed submitted the photographs of the applicants which were included with the copies of Form no. 1 (see the footnote on page 12 above). According to Mr Mskhiladze, this was explained by the fact that, at the request of the Ministry of Security's investigation team responsible for examining the illegal border crossing, the Procurator-General's Office had submitted a request for assistance in that criminal case to the Russian authorities, in accordance with the Minsk Convention. The request, accompanied by the applicants' photographs and fingerprints, was intended to identify the persons concerned and had been drawn up at the end of August 2002. Given that the extradition request, supported by photographs of the applicants and other documents, had been submitted on 6 August 2002, Mr Mskhiladze did not believe that the two sets of photographs could be the same. 175. As to the identification of the extradited applicants, Mr Mskhiladze explained that the Russian investigation orders contained their real names and that the applicants themselves had never contested this. They had also been identified by means of identification procedures in Russia, photographs, identity documents and copies of Form no. 1, submitted by the Russian authorities. In addition, according to the Georgian Ministry of Justice, those individuals did not possess, and had never possessed, Georgian nationality. The Ministry for Refugees had also indicated that they were not on the refugee list. Thus, the extradition orders of 2 October 2002 had not resulted from a hasty procedure. For two months, the Procurator-General's Office had meticulously examined the documents showing that the applicants were accused of serious crimes in Russia, were Russian nationals and were protected by firm assurances from the Russian authorities. 176. Mr Mskhiladze considered that the extradition proceedings had been transparent. At his request, trainee prosecutors who were supervised by him had informed the applicants of the extradition proceedings and had obtained information about their nationality. In addition, the applicants had also been kept informed by the media. Mr Mskhiladze stated that the extradited applicants' lawyers had consequently been able to rely on Article 259 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 254 below) and to apply to a court at any stage of the proceedings, especially as such an application would have had a suspensive effect on execution of the extradition orders. However, Mr Mskhiladze accepted that he was unaware of instances in which Article 259 § 4 had been used prior to the Aliev case (see paragraph 258 below). He pointed out that, following the Supreme Court judgment in that case, three applicants had been able to challenge the extradition orders issued against them (see paragraphs 83 and 84 above). 177. With regard to the issue of access to the extradition files, Mr Mskhiladze explained that the applicants' lawyers had asked to inspect the files, but that this had been refused on the ground that the employees of the Procurator-General's Office responsible for the case needed to be able to study these files themselves. In any event, according to Mr Mskhiladze, the lawyers would have been able to consult the files only if they had decided to apply to a court against the extradition proceedings. 178. Mr Mskhiladze stated that at about 1 p.m. on 2 October 2002 he had personally handed over a copy of the extradition orders – issued that day at noon – to the relevant individual in the Ministry of Justice, with a view to their execution. He had also informed Mr Khidjakadze and Mr Gabaydze, the applicants' lawyers, of the orders by telephone (see paragraphs 212 et seq. below). As he was unable to contact Mr Arabidze, he had asked the latter's colleagues to inform him. He had then sent the lawyers a letter containing a copy of the orders. Mr Mskhiladze submitted to the Court a copy of this letter of notification, which also informed the lawyers that they were entitled to apply to a court on behalf of their clients. As he was unable to send the letter by fax on account of electricity problems – a regular occurrence in Georgia – Mr Mskhiladze instructed Mr Darbaydze to leave the letter at the lawyers' offices (see paragraph 168 above). Since the lawyers were absent, Mr Darbaydze handed over the envelope to an office employee. The copy of the letter submitted by Mr Mskhiladze has an almost entirely illegible and faded signature, preceded by the words “I confirm receipt on 2 October 2002”. 179. Mr Mskhiladze categorically dismissed the above-named lawyers' argument that the extradition had taken place in secret. He considered that, since no execution date was indicated on the extradition orders, the lawyers had had sufficient time to apply to a court between 2 and 4 October. 180. As to Mr Aziev's allegedly alarming condition, Mr Mskhiladze did not rule out the possibility that he had been injured during the incident between the prisoners and special troops and that the journalists had not wished to film him at the airport. In any event, Red Cross representatives had visited each applicant at the airport. Russian television had subsequently shown Mr Aziev being admitted to prison. 181. Mr Mskhiladze dismissed Ms Mukhashavria's argument that the applicants' detention had been directly linked to the fact of Mr Ustinov's lodging of an extradition request against them. 182. Mr Gabrichidze said that on 6 August 2002 Mr Ustinov had visited Georgia with his deputy, several employees of the Russian Procurator-General's Office and special guards. The main purpose of his visit had been to discuss the alarming situation prevailing in the Pankisi Gorge, a Georgian valley which bordered Chechnya. On that occasion he submitted the request for extradition of the applicants and certain supporting documents. Mr Gabrichidze had initially refused this request for the reasons set out in paragraphs 62 and 63 above. Mr Ustinov had not contested that decision, but did however ask that the proceedings be expedited. 183. According to Mr Gabrichidze, the extradition proceedings were conducted with maximum transparency, given that they were covered by the media and the Procurator-General's Office organised regular press conferences on the subject. During the proceedings, firm assurances were obtained from the Russian authorities that the death penalty would not be applied and that the extradited individuals would not be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and would receive legal assistance. In addition, account had been taken of the fact that a moratorium on capital punishment had been in force in Russia since 1996 and that the imposition of that penalty was hardly possible since the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2 February 1999. As a Procurator-General himself, Mr Gabrichidze had had no reason to doubt the credibility of guarantees provided by a member State of the Council of Europe. 184. Having concluded that the material in his possession enabled him to consent to the extradition of five applicants, he had contacted his Russian counterpart, asking him to supervise personally the investigation proceedings in Russia and to ensure that those individuals' procedural rights were fully respected. He had even telephoned Mr Fridinskiy, Russian Deputy Prosecutor-General responsible for the North Caucasus area, who had given verbal guarantees and reassured him by referring to the assurances already provided in writing. 185. Once it had been decided to extradite the five applicants, execution of this measure depended only on the arrival of an aeroplane from Russia. Mr Gabrichidze had instructed Mr Mskhiladze to inform the applicants' lawyers of the decision immediately. Once informed, the latter could have challenged the extradition before the courts. However, Mr Gabrichidze noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure contained only one provision on this subject, which was worded in general terms, did not set out either the procedure or the time-limits for lodging an appeal and did not identify the relevant court. He conceded that, given this deficiency in the legislation and the total lack of precedent, the fact that no appeal had been made was not entirely imputable to the lawyers. Between 1996 (the year in which the Minsk Convention came into force in respect of Georgia) and October 2002, there had been no instance in Georgia of a judicial appeal against an extradition order. Mr Gabrichidze stressed the need to reform Georgian legislation in this area. 186. In view of the rumours concerning Mr Aziev's death, Mr Gabrichidze had telephoned his Russian colleagues; Mr Fridinskiy had assured him that the prisoner in question was alive and in good health. He had subsequently called Mr Fridinskiy on a regular basis; the latter had kept him abreast of progress in the proceedings and had gone so far as to provide very detailed information. This had led Mr Gabrichidze to conclude that Mr Fridinskiy was following the case closely and monitoring the applicants' situation, as he had promised. In conclusion, Mr Gabrichidze maintained that, had the Georgian authorities wished to subject the applicants to arbitrary extradition, they would have handed them over on 6 August 2002 to Mr Ustinov, who had been accompanied by a special unit for that very purpose (see paragraph 182 above). (iv) The head investigator in the illegal border-crossing case 187. Mr Bakashvili, an employee of the Ministry of Security, had led a team of investigators in the proceedings against the applicants for crossing the border illegally. He had personally dealt with the cases of Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Gelogayev, Mr Khashiev, Mr Magomadov, Mr Baymurzayev and Mr Adayev. Of those, only Mr Adayev had been in possession of a Soviet passport; this document stated that he was named Aslan Lechievich Adayev, was a Russian national and had been born on 22 July 1968. The identity of the other applicants listed above had initially been established on the basis of their own statements. Subsequently, a request for assistance in criminal matters was sent to the Russian authorities through the Procurator-General's Office (see paragraph 174 above). The “reports on identification by a third party using photographs”, the statements by the applicants' neighbours and close family, as well as other documents provided by the Russian authorities, had made it possible to establish that Mr Khanoyev was Khanchukayev Aslanbeg Atuyevich, that Mr Mirjoyev was called Gelogayev Ruslan Akhmedovich, that Mr Khashiev was called Mulkoyev Bekkhan Seidkhatanevich, that Mr Usmanov was Magomadov Akhmad Lechievich and that Mr Baymurzayev was named Alkhanov Khusein Movladinevich. 188. With regard to the secrecy surrounding their real identity, the applicants told the investigator they were afraid that their relatives and friends left behind in Chechnya would be persecuted. They had confessed to being armed when they crossed the Georgian border and had cooperated during the investigation. They had not explicitly referred to their fear, but had stated on several occasions that they did not wish to be extradited to Russia. 189. The investigation had been conducted in Chechen with assistance from Mr Saydayev, an interpreter hired from time to time under contract. The applicants all spoke Russian very well and, with the exception of the investigation interviews, had spoken with the investigator in that language. 190. Mr Bakashvili explained that one day he had been in the investigation room in Prison no. 5 with the interpreter and the lawyers for the applicants for whose cases he was responsible. The other investigators from his team were working with other applicants in neighbouring rooms. The interpreter was helping each of the investigators in turn. On leaving the room, he had met Mr Darbaydze, accompanied by a colleague, who had explained to him that a request to extradite the applicants was being examined by the Procurator-General's Office and that he needed to obtain information about their nationality. Mr Bakashvili had replied that it was not his task to instruct the interpreter or the lawyers to assist the prosecutor in that task. He had advised him to make arrangements directly with them. 191. Mr Bakashvili confirmed that, unlike investigators, prosecutors did not require a pass and could enter prisons with their badges. (c) Facts submitted by the interpreter 192. Mr T. Saydayev, a student of international law, confirmed that he had been hired as an interpreter by the Ministry of Security's investigation team. He stated that he had met Mr Darbaydze at Prison no. 5 on only one occasion, namely 13 September 2002 (see paragraph 166 above). On that day, while he was in an investigation room with five or six Chechen prisoners, Mr Darbaydze, accompanied by a female colleague, had informed him that he represented the Procurator-General's Office. He had explained to him in Georgian that this was an extradition case and that he required information about the nationality of the prisoners in question (see paragraph 166 above). Mr Darbaydze had also asked him where he had learned to speak Georgian and Chechen so well. Considering that their conversation so far had been introductory, Mr Saydayev had asked the prosecutor what specifically he wanted interpreted for the prisoners. Mr Darbaydze had then asked him if the applicants were willing to provide the information necessary to establish their nationality. The interpreter had translated this question into Chechen. The prisoners had replied that they refused to provide any information on that subject. Mr Darbaydze had left immediately on hearing the interpretation of that reply. 193. The lawyers had not been present during this discussion and the prosecutor had not held any individual meetings with the applicants. Mr Darbaydze had merely asked Mr Saydayev to put the above question to the prisoners and had left the room following their refusal to answer. He had not handed over any documents. Mr Saydayev had provided Mr Darbaydze with a strictly one-off service on the date in question, one that was not governed by any contractual or friendly relationship. 194. During the investigation, the applicants referred to extradition proceedings several times among themselves, in Chechen; according to Mr Saydayev, the very expression made them afraid. Those discussions had always been marked by doubts and suppositions. At a meeting prior to 13 September 2002, Mr Bakashvili had asked the applicants about their wishes and whether they needed to see a doctor. The applicants had replied that the only thing they wished was not to be extradited. They explained that they watched television in their cell and had heard rumours that they might be extradited to Russia. 195. As regards the affidavit of 6 December 2002 (see paragraph 170 above), Mr Saydayev explained that following their meeting on 13 September 2002, Mr Darbaydze had visited him at home and asked him to swear before a notary that he had met the applicants in Mr Darbaydze's presence and that they had refused to take part in discussions. Mr Darbaydze apparently needed this statement on account of problems with his superiors. 196. In the affidavit in question, entitled “Statement for the Deputy Minister of Justice” and handwritten by Mr Saydayev, he stated: “On 13 September 2002, at Tbilisi Prison no. 5, I assisted investigators from the Ministry of Security as an interpreter in the case of Mr A. Adayev, Mr T. Baymurzayev and other individuals (thirteen persons in total). Once the investigators' work was complete, Mr L. Darbaydze, trainee prosecutor at the Department of International Relations in the Procurator-General's Office, arrived to question the same Chechen prisoners. He first informed them that the question of their extradition was being examined by the Procurator-General's Office and then asked them to provide the necessary explanations in order to establish their nationality. The Chechen prisoners refused, after which Mr Darbaydze drew up a report and submitted it to them for signature. The prisoners refused to sign this document. The prosecutor and the prisoners communicated through me.” 197. Mr Saydayev explained to the Court that Mr Darbaydze had dictated this text to him in the notary's presence. He had been wrong not to pay attention to the sentence about extradition, which had been slipped into the text. Mr Darbaydze had told him that he was merely required to confirm his presence in the prison on 13 September 2002, together with the applicants' refusal to provide information; Mr Saydayev had concentrated on those two points and had neglected the rest of the text, unaware that this would be of importance. 198. In conclusion, Mr Saydayev stressed that Mr Darbaydze had not, with his assistance, informed the applicants of the extradition proceedings on 13 September 2002. (d) Facts submitted by the medical expert 199. Mr K. Akhalkatsishvili went through the reports which he had submitted on 4 October 2002 after examining Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Gelogayev, Mr Khashiev, Mr Issayev and Mr Baymurzayev, applicants, Mr Sheshberidze, a member of the special troops, and Mr Kerdikoshvili, Mr Dalakishvili, Mr Buchukuri, Mr Samadashvili and Mr Kovziridze, prison wardens. He explained that, on the instruction of the Ministry of Justice's Prisons Department, he had also taken into account the observations of the doctor in Prison no. 5 when preparing these reports. 200. It appeared from the reports in question that Mr Khanchukayev was injured on the right side of his body, had numerous bruises on his back and shoulders, measuring 9 x 1 cm, 9 x 4 cm, 6 x 3 cm, 3.5 x 3 cm, 5 x 1 cm, 4.5 x 1 cm, 12 x 1 cm, 12.2 x 1 cm, 10 x 1 cm and 10 x 0.8 cm respectively, five bruises on the face (around the nose and lips) and a bruise on the right knee. Mr Gelogayev had five bruises on his forehead, measuring 2 x 0.5 cm, 1 x 0.1 cm, 0.5 x 0.1 cm, 2.5 x 0.2 cm and 3 x 0.8 cm respectively, a bruise of 3 x 2 cm on the cheek, a bruise measuring 4 x 1.5 cm around the jaw and a bruise of 4 x 3 cm on the right shoulder. Mr Magomadov had a bruise of 3 x 1 cm on the forehead, another measuring 4 x 3 cm on the cheek, a bruise that covered all of one ear, a bruise of 4 x 4 cm on the right temple, bruising around the wrist joints, a bruise of 22 x 2 cm on the left side and a bruise of 5 x 2 cm on the left knee (see the applicants' statements in paragraph 125 above). 201. The injuries sustained by Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Gelogayev and Mr Magomadov resulted from blows inflicted by hard blunt objects and dated from 4 October 2002. They were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to their health. 202. Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev had not made any complaints and had presented no signs of blows or violence. 203. Mr Issayev had a broad haematoma around the right eye and two bruises to the forehead, each of which measured 1 x 1 cm (see paragraph 125 above). These injuries resulted from blows inflicted by hard blunt objects and were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to his health. 204. Mr Kerdikoshvili had a wound of 6 x 0.1 cm on the right shoulder and two wounds, measuring 0.5 x 1 cm and 0.3 x 0.1 cm, around the left wrist. Those injuries resulted from blows inflicted by a sharp object, dated from 4 October 2002 and were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to his health. Mr Sheshberidze apparently suffered pain when walking. He had two bruises, measuring 3 x 2.5 cm and 0.8 x 0.5 cm, on the left ankle, which was also swollen. The joint on Mr Dalakishvili's left knee was swollen and he had a bruise measuring 3 x 2.5 cm. Mr Buchukuri had a bruise measuring 3 x 2 cm on the left ankle and a bruise of 1 x 1 cm on the left testicle. Mr Samadashvili had a bruise measuring 5 x 3 cm on the right side of the chest and another, measuring 1.5 x 1 cm, on the right ankle. Mr Kovziridze had a bruise of 2 x 1.5 cm on the right hand and another measuring 3.5 x 3 cm on the left foot. Those injuries resulted from blows inflicted using hard blunt objects and dated from 4 October 2002. They were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to their health. 205. Mr Dalakishvili submitted to the Court a medical certificate and a statement that he had undergone an operation on the left knee in December 2003 on account of rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. (e) Extracts from the applicants' “prisoner files” 206. At the Court's request, the Georgian Government made available to it in Tbilisi the applicants' prisoner files. The medical information set out below was obtained from this source. 207. It appears from the medical certificate of 6 August 2002, drawn up by the doctor in the Ministry of Security's investigation prison that Mr Khanchukayev was in good health but was suffering from swollen legs. The entry in his medical records on 4 October 2002 mentions numerous bruises, the size of which varied between 1 x 1 cm and 20 x 5 cm, as well as a fracture to the left shoulder. No mention is made of any medical treatment administered to the applicant on that date. The next entry, on 8 October 2002, states that the prison doctor treated Mr Khanchukayev for pain in the pelvis area. According to the entry for 12 October 2002, the applicant was treated by a surgeon. 208. According to medical certificates dated 6 August 2002, Mr Issayev had dressings on the left shoulder and right tibia, injured areas which had required surgical intervention on the previous day. Mr Khashiev showed a deformation of the left side of the lower jaw, together with a scar from an operation dating from a year previously. His legs were also swollen and painful. Mr Baymurzayev also had a deformation of the lower jaw and swelling of the tibias, which was making it difficult for him to walk. It appears from Mr Baymurzayev's file that he received medical treatment from December 2002 onwards for the injury to his jaw and that on 10 October 2003 he was placed in the prison infirmary, as the diagnosis showed a total deformation of the chin bone. 209. It appears that on 7 August 2002, at the Ministry of Security's request, Mr Margoshvili was transferred from a civilian hospital to the prison infirmary. 210. According to a diagnosis drawn up for the Ministry of Security on 7 August 2002 by the civilian hospital in connection with Mr Magomadov's transfer to the prison infirmary, he had an infected wound on the right side of the neck (see paragraph 138 above) and presented numerous grazes on his body. It was recommended that the wound be disinfected and the dressing changed daily or every second day. According to the entry in his medical records on 5 October 2002, treatment had been given for the swelling. 211. The entry in Mr Gelogayev's medical records on 4 October 2002 confirmed the presence of the injuries observed by the medical expert (see paragraph 200 above). No mention is made of any treatment administered to the applicant on that date. On the other hand, according to the entry on 10 October 2002, he had received “symptomatic treatment” and been issued with analgesics. (f) Facts submitted in writing by the applicants' lawyers before the domestic courts 212. As they were unable to appear before the Court in Tbilisi (see paragraph 44 above), on 17 April 2004 Mr Arabidze, Mr Khidjakadze and Mr Gabaydze informed the Court in writing that they had never received a letter from Mr Mskhiladze (see paragraph 178 above). They claimed to have learned of it for the first time in April 2004, once the Court had sent it to the applicants' representatives. 213. As director of the law firm to which the letter in question had allegedly been delivered, Mr Khidjakadze stated that the signature on the document did not belong to any of his colleagues. He noted that the letter bore no registration number, although his firm's practice was to assign a number to each package as soon as it arrived. In his opinion, the document had been fabricated, and was being used by the Government to blame the lawyers for not lodging an appeal against their clients' extradition. The two other lawyers also failed to recognise the signature confirming receipt of the letter. 214. Mr Gabaydze explained that, on the evening of 3 October 2002, a friend who worked at the Ministry of Security (whose name is not disclosed, at the lawyer's request) informed him confidentially that the extradition of “certain Chechens” was being prepared. He then contacted the Chechen representative in Georgia and went with him to the Procurator-General's Office. They attempted unsuccessfully to obtain information. Mr V.M., a prosecutor, informed them by telephone that he was unaware of any such developments and asked them not to call again. Ms L.G., also a prosecutor, told them that she could say nothing over the telephone. 215. Those attempts having been unsuccessful, Mr Gabaydze went to the Rustavi-2 television channel, in order to state publicly that the secret extradition of Chechen prisoners was being planned (see paragraph 124 above). At 9 a.m. the following day, he went to the prison to try to meet his clients, but the prison doors were closed and the telephones had been disconnected. At that stage he did not know which of his clients were affected or whether the extradition had already taken place. 216. The video recording of the 11 p.m. news bulletin broadcast on Rustavi-2 on 3 October 2002 and made available to the Court by the Georgian Government did indeed contain an interview with Mr Gabaydze. The lawyer stated that, according to a reliable source, the extradition of several Chechen prisoners, arrested between 3 and 5 August on the Russo-Georgian border, was planned for the following day. He claimed that he did not know those prisoners' names, that the telephones at the Procurator-General's Office had been disconnected and that the entire proceedings were taking place in secret. However, he did not believe that the individuals with Georgian nationality would be extradited. 217. On 15 November 2002 the investigator responsible for “particularly important” cases issued an order in respect of each of the applicants concerning the “establishment of the defendant's identity”. The orders in question, which were all identically worded, noted that “documents, particularly passports, were received during the investigation” which proved that the defendants in question were Aslan Lechievich Adayev, born on 22 July 1968 in the village of Orekhovo (Achkhoy-Martan district); Khusein Mukhidovich Aziev, born on 28 September 1973 in the village of Roshni-Chu (Urus-Martan district); Rizvan Vakhidovich Vissitov, born on 1 October 1977 in the village of Goiti (Urus-Martan district); Khusein Khamitovich Khadjiev, born on 8 November 1975 in the village of Samashki (Achkhoy-Martan district) (see paragraph 72 above). “This information was also confirmed by the defendants themselves, and by other material from the case file.” The Russian Government did not submit the equivalent document concerning Mr Shamayev, one of the five extradited applicants. He was referred to in all the documents as Abdul-Vakhab Akhmedovich Shamayev. 218. On 11 November 2002 the Russian Government submitted to the Court the names of the lawyers who were representing the extradited applicants before the Russian courts. Following repeated requests from the Court, they also sent their addresses on 19 November 2002. On 22 January 2003, claiming that the lawyers enjoyed unlimited access to their clients, the Government provided details of the dates and number of meetings between them. 219. The case file shows that, on 15 November 2002, Mr Shamayev refused the assistance of Mr Zalugin, who had been assigned to him on 5 October 2002, and asked that “any other lawyer” be appointed. This handwritten request by Mr Shamayev is included in the case file. On the same date Ms Kuchinskaya was assigned to his case by virtue of a mission order issued by the head of the Minvody legal consultancy office. From 21 February 2003 Mr Shamayev was assisted by another lawyer, Mr Timirgayev, a member of the Bar of the Chechen Republic. 220. On 5 October 2002 the heads of the legal consultancy offices in Minvody and Essentuki assigned Ms Melnikova and Mr Molochkov to represent Mr Khadjiev and Mr Vissitov respectively during the preliminary investigation. On 15 November 2002 Mr Khadjiev asked that, in view of Ms Melnikova's long absence, “any other lawyer be assigned to him”. On the same date the head of the Minvody legal consultancy office assigned Ms Kuchinskaya to represent him. 221. On 5 October 2002 Mr Zalugin was assigned to represent Mr Adayev during the investigation. On 22 October 2002 Mr Adayev refused his assistance and asked that “any other lawyer” be appointed. On 16 and 21 October 2002 Mr Adayev's relatives chose Mr Lebedev (a member of the Moscow Bar from the Novatsia law firm) and Mr Khorochev (from Isk, an association of lawyers in the Odintsovo district, Moscow region) to defend his interests. Only Mr Lebedev's authority to act, approved by the director of Novatsia, is included in the case file. 222. On 5 October 2002 the head of the legal consultancy office in Essentuki assigned Mr Molochkov to represent Mr Aziev before the Procurator-General's Office. Another authority to act was drawn up on 21 October 2002 in the name of Mr Khorochev. Since 31 January 2003 Mr Aziev has been assisted by Mr Timichev, a member of the Bar of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria (see paragraph 238 below). 223. Until 4 October 2002 Mr Khadjiev, Mr Adayev and Mr Aziev were represented before the Georgian courts by Mr Gabaydze; Mr Vissitov was represented by Mr Khidjakadze; and Mr Shamayev by Mr Chkhatarashvili. Those lawyers were remunerated by the leadership of the Chechen-Kist community in Georgia (under contracts for legal assistance dated 5 and 6 August 2002). 224. The lawyers stated that, at 9 a.m. on 4 October 2002, they rushed to the prison to see their clients, but were refused entry. “Not knowing how to apply to the Court”, they asked their colleagues, Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili, to lodge an application on behalf of their clients. Those lawyers were also denied access to the prisoners and could not therefore arrange to have authorities to act drawn up in their names. In extremely urgent circumstances, and in agreement with the leadership of the Chechen-Kist community, Mr Gabaydze, Mr Khidjakadze and Mr Chkhatarashvili prepared documents (included in the case file) delegating authority to their two colleagues, who immediately applied to the Court. 225. On 22 November 2002 Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili faxed the powers of attorney authorising them to represent the extradited applicants before the Court. Those documents, which referred to Georgia as the respondent State, had been signed by the applicants' family members and friends living in Russia. 226. The lawyers explained that on 28 October 2002 they had contacted the Russian consulate in Tbilisi in order to obtain visas so that they could visit their extradited clients. They were informed orally that, in order to obtain a visa, they would have to produce a written invitation from the prison establishment in question. On 29 October 2002 they asked the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court for assistance. He explained that he would not reply without some indication from the Court. The lawyers then asked the Court to intervene on their behalf with the Russian authorities so that visas would be issued. 227. On 5 December 2002 the Russian Government alleged that Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili could not claim to be the representatives of the extradited applicants with regard to the part of the application against Russia, as the authorities to act referred only to Georgia as the respondent State. In addition, under Russian legislation a foreign lawyer could not defend an individual in Russia, either during the preparatory investigation or before the courts. However, “if they were to contact the Russian Procurator-General's Office”, the lawyers “[could] in principle visit the extradited applicants”. “Those alleged representatives ... who [supported] international terrorists in Russia [were] not considered by the Russian authorities as the applicants' representatives before the Court and [would] not be contacted by them in that capacity.” 228. On 17 June 2003 the Court decided to ask the Russian Government, in application of Rule 39 (of the Rules of Court), to allow Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili unhindered access to the extradited applicants with a view to preparing the hearing on admissibility (see paragraph 24 above). On 4 August 2003 Ms Mukhashavria asked the Representative of the Russian Federation, by virtue of this decision by the Court, to help her obtain a visa for Russia and authorisation to visit the applicants in prison. In a reply dated 21 August 2003, the Representative of the Russian Federation reminded her, through the Court, that the Russian Government did not consider her as the extradited applicants' representative. He stated that the Georgian lawyers could ask the trial court before which the applicants would be brought to authorise their admission as defence counsel, but that the Government themselves could take no action in this regard. 229. On 22 August 2003 the Court again invited the Russian Government to comply with the interim measure indicated on 17 June 2003. On 1 September 2003 the Government repeated the grounds for their refusal as set out in the above-mentioned letter of 21 August. 230. At the hearing on admissibility the Russian Government submitted a graphology report of 29 August 2003 by the forensic analysis centre at the Russian Ministry of Justice. The expert who had prepared the report claimed that the authorities to act in respect of Mr Shamayev, Mr Adayev and Mr Aziev, submitted to the Court by Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili, had not been signed by those applicants (see paragraph 225 above). In the case of Mr Vissitov, it had not been possible to ascertain whether the signature was indeed his, and it had been impossible to decide the question with regard to Mr Khadjiev, since the analysed specimen had been very short and incomplete. 231. In reply, Ms Mukhashavria pointed out that those applicants had been extradited before their lawyers could obtain authorisation to visit them. After their arrival in Russia, she had attempted unsuccessfully to make contact with them. She had then appealed to their relatives and friends, and it was the latter's signatures which appeared on the authorities to act. 232. On 20 November 2002 the Registry of the Court informed Mr Molochkov, Ms Kuchinskaya, Mr Khorochev and Mr Lebedev (see paragraphs 218‑22 above) that their clients had attempted to lodge an application with the Court on 4 October 2002. They were asked to make contact with the applicants so that they could confirm or deny their intention to apply to the Court. On 9 December 2002 the Representative of the Russian Federation replied to the Court, stating that the lawyers “objected to the Court's attempts to contact them”. Indeed, Mr Khorochev and Mr Lebedev never sent a reply. Mr Molochkov and Ms Kuchinskaya replied only in August 2003 (see paragraph 241 below). 233. Consequently, and in accordance with the authorisation granted by the President of the Section (see paragraph 16 above), on 10 December 2002 the Registry sent identical letters (by registered mail requiring acknowledgment of receipt), accompanied by application forms, directly to the extradited applicants at the address of the pre-trial detention centre in town A. On 16 January 2003 the Court received the five acknowledgments of receipt, signed on 24 December 2002 by the head of the prison secretariat. In September 2003 the Russian Government produced a statement, delivered on an undetermined date by the head of the prison administration of the pre-trial detention centre in question, stating that no letters from the Court to the extradited applicants had arrived at that establishment. Following the Court's communication of the above-mentioned acknowledgments of receipt, the Russian Government provided other explanations (see paragraph 239 below). 234. Mr Shamayev, Mr Vissitov and Mr Adayev never replied to the Court to confirm or deny their intention of applying to the Court as expressed on 4 October 2002. 235. On 27 October 2003 the Court received an application form from Mr Khusein Khamitovich Khadjiev, duly completed and dated 8 October 2003, which named both Georgia and Russia as the respondent States. It had been posted on 9 October 2003 by the administration of the pre-trial detention centre in town B (see paragraph 53 above). Mr Khadjiev provided an authority to act made out in the name of Mr S. Kotov, a lawyer. Although the relevant box on this document referred only to Georgia as the respondent State, the form contained complaints against both Georgia and Russia (see paragraphs 388, 439 and 484 below). 236. On 19 December 2003 those documents were sent to the Governments and to Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili. Mr Kotov was asked to provide certain additional information, particularly with regard to his client's application to the Court on the evening of his extradition and his representation before the Court by the Georgian lawyers. He was also asked to specify who would represent his client before the Court with regard to the part of the application concerning Russia. 237. To date, no reply has been received by the Court from Mr Kotov. 238. Mr Khusein Mukhidovich Aziev, one of the five extradited applicants, did not return the application form sent to him by the Court on 10 December 2002. On the other hand, on 19 August 2003 he lodged a separate application with the Court, referring only to Russia (Aziev v. Russia, no. 28861/03). Represented by Mr Timichev (see paragraph 222 above), he complained of the impossibility of being tried by a competent court in Russia and about the conduct of the Russian lawyer who had been assigned to him after his illegal extradition to that country. Having initially made no reference to any application in connection with his extradition, it was not until 9 October 2003 that Mr Aziev confirmed that he had submitted such a complaint to the Court and asked that case no. 28861/03 be joined to the present application. In a letter of 30 October 2003, sent to the Court in connection with application no. 28861/03, he confirmed that he had learned from his lawyer and the media that the Russian Government were denying that he had applied to the Court from Georgia, with Ms Mukhashavria's assistance, in order to complain about his illegal extradition. He stated that he endorsed all the steps taken by that lawyer, even if it had not always been possible to take his instructions. 239. On 3 December 2003 the Russian Government explained the misunderstanding over the receipt by the extradited applicants of letters from the Court. They alleged that the letters had been delivered to the applicants in person, and had been left with them rather than being included in their prisoner files. The absence of any record in those files lay behind the statement made by the head of the prison administration to the effect that the prison had never received the correspondence in question (see paragraph 233 above). The Government submitted reports on the administrative inquires subsequently conducted into this matter in the pre-trial detention centre and handwritten letters from Mr Shamayev, Mr Adayev, Mr Khadjiev and Mr Vissitov, dated 3 November 2003. 240. In those letters Mr Shamayev stated that he had received the Court's correspondence but had not replied in person. However, he did not rule out the possibility that his lawyer had sent a complaint to the Court on his behalf. Mr Adayev confirmed that he had received the Court's correspondence at the end of 2002 and that he had handed it over to his lawyers for them to reply. He also stated that he had sent a complaint to the Court from Georgia with the help of a lawyer. Mr Khadjiev stated that, while in Georgia, he had sent a complaint to the Court with the assistance of a lawyer. On 24 December 2002 he had received the Court's letter in the pre-trial detention centre in Russia. Mr Vissitov alleged that he had sent a complaint to the Court from Georgia, with the help of a lawyer. He had subsequently received a letter from the Court in Russia, but had lost it during a change of cell. No letter was submitted from Mr Aziev. However, the Government submitted an explanation from an employee in the SIZO administration for the Stavropol region, stating that Mr Aziev, who had been questioned on 3 November 2003, had confirmed that he had received a letter from the Court at the end of 2002. Unlike the other applicants, Mr Aziev had not written an explanatory letter since he did not speak Russian well and did not write in that language. 241. On 26 August 2003 Mr Molochkov and Ms Kuchinskaya replied to the Court's letter of 20 November 2002 (see paragraph 232 above). They alleged that Mr Shamayev, Mr Khadjiev, Mr Vissitov and Mr Aziev, their former clients, had never complained of a violation of their rights and had never expressed a wish to apply to the Court. Having received no instructions from them, they had been unable to contact the Court on their own initiative. They had always had adequate time and facilities to prepare their clients' defence and opportunities to meet them without prison wardens being present. 242. On 15 September 2003 the Russian Government produced photographs of four of the extradited applicants, taken in their respective cells in the pre-trial detention centre in town B, and a photograph of Mr Aziev, dated 23 August 2003, who was then detained in a pre-trial detention centre in town A (see paragraph 53 above). Unlike the other applicants, Mr Aziev appears in only one photograph and is shown from a distance in a general shot of his cell. Apart from the observation that the conditions of detention seemed to be better in the first SIZO mentioned above, the photographs of the cells included with this submission gave rise to no particular comments from the Court. 243. On 8 January 2004 the Russian Government alleged that Mr Khadjiev's submission of a complaint to the Court (see paragraph 235 above) marked a turning point in the instant case and was a breakthrough in the procedural impasse. They had no doubt that Mr Khadjiev had indeed applied to the Court on this occasion and claimed that there was consequently no further point in considering the alleged communications which had previously been sent by him to the Court or those sent on behalf of the four other extradited individuals. The Russian Government stated that they recognised the authority to act given by Mr Khadjiev to Mr Kotov in his application against Georgia. They requested that this application be subject to the “ordinary procedure” and be communicated to them, and that all of the previous proceedings in the instant case be annulled. In their opinion, this would put an end to “non-procedural activities in this case”. On 5 and 13 February 2004 the Court reminded the Government that Mr Khadjiev's complaints had been communicated to the respondent Governments prior to consideration of their admissibility and that they did not require any fresh communication measure. 244. With regard to its attempts to question the five extradited applicants and the two applicants who disappeared in Tbilisi and are now detained in Russia, the Court refers to paragraphs 27 et seq. above. 245. According to the medical department of the Georgian Ministry of Justice, the applicants presented no injuries on 4 October 2002. 246. On 14 November 2002, in conditions of strict confidentiality, the Russian Government produced medical certificates drawn up on 4 November 2002, a month after their extradition. According to the prison doctor, the applicants had made “no complaints about their state of health and were, in general, in good condition”. On 22 January 2003 the Government submitted new medical certificates, dated 15 January 2003 and signed by a cardiologist, a neurologist, a generalist and a surgeon. On 1 September 2003 they submitted further medical certificates, drawn up on 11 August 2003. The most recent medical certificates, submitted on 25 February 2004, were dated 20 February 2004 and were drawn up by doctors from the civilian hospital in town B, in the Stavropol region. 247. According to the medical certificates dated 4 November 2002 and 15 January 2003, Mr Vissitov had complained of a dryness of the throat and a dry cough. His condition was described as “objectively satisfactory”. Monitoring by the medical service was recommended. According to the medical certificate of 11 August 2003, Mr Vissitov had made no complaint concerning his state of health and did not present any physical injury. He had a cataract on the left eye and a fracture of the nose bone was noted in July 2003. A psychiatric examination on 13 February 2003 found that he was in good psychological health. X-rays taken on 18 October 2002 and 24 July 2003 showed no chest pathology. At no point during his detention had Mr Vissitov requested medical assistance. According to a medical certificate dated 20 February 2004, the generalist found evidence of dystonia. 248. On 15 January 2003 it was noted that Mr Khadjiev had been ill for two days. He complained of hot flushes, a cough and shivering. The doctor observed increased vesicular murmurs in the lungs, an acute viral respiratory infection complicated by tracheobronchitis, and possible pneumonia of the right side. His state was described as “objectively satisfactory”. Treatment in the medical unit was considered necessary. 249. The medical certificate of 11 August 2003 mentions old traces of a fracture of the nose bone, an appendectomy in 1998, and a gunshot wound to the right hip dating from July 2002. A psychiatric examination on 13 February 2003 found that he was in good psychological health. X-rays of 18 October 2002 and 24 July 2003 showed no chest pathology. Mr Khadjiev requested medical treatment on 20 February (for an acute viral respiratory infection) and 3 April 2003 (for acute laryngitis). He had made no other requests for medical assistance. According to the medical certificate of 20 February 2004, the generalist found evidence of dystonia and cephalalgia. 250. According to the medical certificates dated 4 November 2002 and 15 January 2003, Mr Shamayev complained of general weakness, acute pain in the hips, dryness of the throat and mouth, and a dry cough. A week prior to 15 January 2003 he had suffered an acute viral respiratory infection. Normal vesicular murmurs in the lungs and chronic cholecystitis (inflammation of the gall-bladder) in remission were observed. His condition was described as “objectively satisfactory”. According to the medical certificate of 11 August 2003, Mr Shamayev made no complaint about his state of health. His medical records revealed bruising to the left shoulder. A psychiatric examination on 13 February 2003 found him to be in good psychological health. X-rays dated 18 October 2002 and 24 July 2003 showed no chest pathology. Mr Shamayev had not asked for medical assistance at any point during his detention. According to the medical certificate of 20 February 2004, the generalist found hypotonic dyskinesia of the digestive tract. 251. According to the medical certificates dated 4 November 2002 and 15 January 2003, Mr Adayev had made no complaint about his state of health. His condition was described as “objectively satisfactory”. The medical certificate dated 11 August 2003 mentions pale pink bruising on the chest, a gunshot wound to the left shoulder dating from 1994 and a traumatism on the coccyx dating from 1986. A psychiatric examination on 13 February 2003 found him to be in good psychological health. X-rays taken on 13 March and 24 July 2003 showed no chest pathology. On 9 December 2002 Mr Adayev was examined by a doctor following an episode of hypertension and post-traumatic neuritis of the left shoulder. He received medical treatment on 21 February and 17 March 2003. 252. According to the medical certificates dated 4 November 2002, 15 January and 11 August 2003, Mr Aziev had made no complaints about his health. His condition was described as “objectively satisfactory”. Mr Aziev had not asked for medical assistance at any point during his detention. On 20 February 2004 the generalist found no evidence of any pathology.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. 6. In 1988 the applicant was convicted of membership in an illegal organisation, namely the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. On 15 April 1991 he was conditionally released from prison. 7. On 16 March 1996 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by the police. On 9 April 1996 the applicant was interrogated by the police officers at the Tunceli Security Directorate. 8. On 9 April 1996 the Malatya State Security Court ordered his detention on remand. 9. On 22 April 1996 the public prosecutor at the Malatya State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership in an illegal armed organisation, namely the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of Law no. 3713. 10. In the meantime on 7 May 1996 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter accusing the applicant of being an accessory to a bank robbery and murder of a clerk on 18 May 1992. On 26 December 1996 the two cases were joined and the criminal proceedings against the applicant continued before the Malatya State Security Court. 11. On 16 December 1997 the Malatya State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 12. On 30 November 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Malatya State Security Court without conducting a hearing since the applicant's lawyer was absent without justification. 13. On 10 October 2002 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the applicant was released from prison due to ill-health pursuant to Article 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the applicant was imprisoned, in total, for about six years and six months.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1939 and currently resides in Donetsk. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 23 May 1987 the applicant was injured in an accident at a State mine belonging to the Trest Donets’ke Shakhtobudivel’ne Upravlinnia No. 6 (the “DSU”). On 26 August 1987 the Medical Expert Commission recognised the applicant as falling within the third category of invalidity (третя група інвалідності). From 1987 to September 1996 the applicant received disablement benefits from the DSU. 8. In September 1996 the DSU stopped paying the disability allowance to the applicant. 9. In April 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk against the DSU, seeking compensation for the disablement benefits which had not been paid to him since 1996. 10. On 25 January 1999 the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk allowed the applicant’s claims in part. It ordered the DSU to pay the applicant UAH 3,496.03[1] in compensation for material damage. On 18 February 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court partly quashed that decision in respect of the amount of compensation and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 11. The applicant’s complaints to the Presidents of the Donetsk Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, with a view to initiating a supervisory review, were rejected on 1 April 1999 and 26 September 2000, respectively, as being unsubstantiated. 12. On 1 July 1999 the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk allowed the applicant’s claims. It also ordered the DSU to pay the applicant UAH 7,336.22[2] in compensation. 13. Later, the applicant introduced a claim against the DSU with the Kuybyshevsky District Court of Donetsk, requesting reimbursement of the disability allowance for the period between 1 July 1999 and 1 December 2000. On 16 May 2001 court awarded the applicant the amount of UAH 5,962.22[3]. 14. On 1 November 1999 the applicant received UAH 25[4] in execution of the judgment of 1 July 1999. 15. On 7 February 2000 the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that no breaches of the law were found in the course of the execution proceedings or the auctioning of the DSU’s property by the Voroshylovsky District Execution Service. 16. In March 2000 the Voroshylovsky District Execution Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed in full due to the DSU’s lack of funds and its outstanding debt of UAH 800,000[5] in salary and social benefit payments. 17. On 27 April 2000 the Donetsk Municipal Council, in response to the applicant’s complaints, informed him that there was no finding of a breach of the law in the course of the execution proceedings or the auctioning of the DSU’s property. 18. On 16 May and 27 June 2001 the Kuybyshevsky District Court of Donetsk respectively awarded the applicant UAH 5,962.22[6] and UAH 714.15[7] in compensation for unpaid disablement benefits for the period from 1 July 1999 to January 2001. 19. The aforementioned judgments were presented to the Kuybyshevsky District Bailiffs’ Service for enforcement on 5 June and 27 August 2001, respectively. The enforcement proceedings were initiated on the same date. 20. During 1999-2002 the judgment of the Voroshylovsky District Court of 1 July 1999 was partially enforced in instalments: in 1999 the applicant received UAH 413[8], in 2000 – UAH 476[9], in 2001 – UAH 1,560[10] and UAH 2,403.85[11], and in 2002 – UAH 2,514[12]. 21. Pursuant to payment order no. 247 of 15 July 2003, the applicant received the remaining part of the debt (UAH 6,645.74). 22. On 16 July 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings on the writs of execution of the Kuybyshevsky District Court for the judgments of 16 May and 27 June 2001 (UAH 714.15[13] and UAH 5,962.22[14]) and the writ of execution of the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk of 1 July 1999 (UAH 7,336.22[15]), in view of the full enforcement of the respective judgments given in the applicant’s favour. The proceedings concerning the judgment of 1 July 1999 were terminated on 16 July 2003 due to the payment in full in 2002 (date unspecified). The judgments of 16 May and 27 June 2001 were enforced on 16 July 2003 only. 23. On 15 October 2003 the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that his complaints about the failure of the Bailiffs’ to enforce the judgment of 1 July 1999 and to pay him UAH 413[16] were unsubstantiated. 24. The applicant alleges that on 7 July 1998 he was evicted from his room in the DSU’s dormitory. The applicant was on the waiting list for State housing but was not provided with an apartment. 25. The applicant maintains that he has 11,395.65 Soviet Rubles deposited with the Savings Bank. The applicant alleges that in 1991, after Ukraine declared its independence, the deposits disappeared.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and currently resides in Lysychansk, Ukraine. 6. In 1997-1998 the applicant worked as a miner for the State-owned Lysychansk Mine-Construction Company (Shakhtobudivel’ne Upravlinnia; the “LSU”). 7. The Government submitted that from 1997 onwards the LSU experienced financial difficulties and therefore the salaries were paid to its employees irregularly. On 24 July 1997 the Lysychansk State Tax Inspectorate informed the Bailiffs’ Service that the LSU’s property was in a tax lien. 8. In October 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Lysychansk City Court against the LSU seeking to recover the salary owed to him. 9. On 2 November 2000 the Lysychansk City Court allowed his claims and ordered the LSU to pay the applicant UAH 4,857.53[1] in compensation. 10. On 14 November 2000 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted execution proceedings in respect of the judgment of 2 November 2000. 11. On 23 November 2000 the bailiff passed a resolution collecting an enforcement fee from the debtor and joining the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case to the combined enforcement proceedings no. 4/2 of 1 September 2000 that concerned other creditors of the mine. 12. On 1 July 2001 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that his judgment could not be executed due to the LSU’s lack of funds. 13. On 28 November 2003 the LSU paid the applicant UAH 4,857.53, in compliance with the judgment of 2 November 2000. 14. On 1 December 2003 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs’ Service terminated the proceedings as the judgment had been enforced in full. 15. On 21 January 2004 the applicant informed the Court that he had been paid the sum of UAH 6,665[2] in compensation for salary arrears, which sum included the judgment debt of 2 November 2000.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Olegovich Dolgov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born on 2 March 1958 in Illovaisk and currently resides there. 7. In September 1999 the applicant lodged two complaints with the Labour Disputes Commission (the “Commission”) of the State Joint Stock Company Illovayskaya Mine (his former employer – hereafter the “Mine”) seeking reimbursement of salary arrears in the amount of UAH 1,535.02[1] for work he had performed in 1997 and 1999. 8. On 19 October 1999 the Commission held that the first part of the complaint should be allowed and the Mine should pay the applicant UAH 687.61[2] in arrears for September, October, November and December 1997. 9. On 11 November 1999 the Commission ordered the Mine to pay the wages due to the applicant. On 6 December 1999 the Khartsyzsk City Baillifs initiated execution proceedings on the basis of this order. However, it was not executed due to the Mine’s lack of funds. 10. In February 2000 the applicant lodged an application with the Mine, seeking termination of his employment contract. 11. On 7 March 2000 the applicant again lodged complaints with the Commission, seeking to recover the wages owed to him on termination of his employment and the enforcement of the decision of 11 November 1999. 12. On 16 May 2000 the Commission examined the second complaint of the applicant and ordered that the debts amounting to UAH 847.42[3] be paid to the applicant (for the period of March, May, June, September, October and November 1999). 13. On 14 June 2000 the Commission issued certificates Nos. 42 (for UAH 687.61[4]) and 43 (for UAH 847.42[5]) acknowledging the Mine’s debts to the applicant. 14. On 10 August 2000 the Khartsyzsk State Baillifs initiated execution proceedings (виконавче провадження) on the basis of these certificates. The Baillifs set a time-limit for their enforcement, but the Commission’s decisions were not executed due to the Mine’s lack of funds. 15. On 12 June 2002 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Mine and held that a moratorium should be imposed on the forced sale of the Mine’s property. 16. On 5 August 2003 the Government informed the Court that the bankruptcy proceedings were still pending. 17. On 24 November 2003 the Khartsyzsk City Court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaints regarding the Baillifs’ failure to enforce the decisions and his claim for compensation for moral damage. This judgment was not appealed and thus became final. 18. On 22 January 2004 the Mine paid UAH 1,535.00[6] to the applicant, being the full amount of the salary arrears owed to him, in compliance with the Commission’s decisions.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and currently resides in Privolye, the Lugansk Region. 6. The applicant is an employee of the Kapustin mine of the State-owned Lysychanskugol Company (hereafter “the mine”), which is a structural division of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine. 7. According to the Government, all of the property of the mine has been in a tax lien since 24 July 1998. Moreover, since August 1997 the mine experienced financial difficulties and therefore salaries were not paid regularly to its employees. 8. On 25 January 2001 the labour disputes commission of the mine (“the commission”) ordered it to pay the applicant UAH 4,037.60[1] in compensation for unpaid salary for the period of 1997-2000. 9. Following this decision, the applicant complained to the Lysychansk City Court (the “Lysychansk Court”), seeking to institute proceedings against the mine in order to recover his salary. On 2 February 2001 the Lysychansk Court refused to consider the applicant’s complaints since the commission had already allowed his claims and awarded compensation in his favour. 10. On 12 February 2001 the Lysychansk Execution Service (the “bailiffs’ ”) initiated execution proceedings. On 5 March 2001 the bailiffs informed the applicant that the commission’s decision could not be executed due to the mine’s lack of funds. On 3 May 2001 the Lugansk Regional Department of Justice confirmed this. 11. On 29 May 2001 the Arbitration Court of Lugansk instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the mine on the basis of the application lodged by the Luganskoblenergo Company. On 17 July 2001 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court upheld the settlement reached by the parties in the case and discontinued the bankruptcy proceedings. 12. On 16 October 2001 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the mine on the basis of the application lodged by the Gorlivka Engineering Plant. These proceedings were also discontinued, on 23 September 2002, after a settlement. 13. On 28 November 2003 the mine transferred UAH 4,037.60[2] to the applicant’s account in the Lysychansk Branch of the Savings Bank of Ukraine. 14. On 8 December 2003 the bailiffs’ terminated the enforcement proceedings in the case in view of their completion. 15. On 12 June 2003 the commission awarded the applicant UAH 2,789.26[3] in compensation for salary arrears for the period of 2001-2003. 16. On 14 May 2004 the bailiffs’ terminated the ensuing enforcement proceedings in view of their completion on 12 June 2003.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

7. The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born on 6 January 1941 and lives in Dolyns’ka, the Kirovograd Region. 8. In March 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dolyns’ka City Court against the State Treasury Department, the Dolyns’ka financial department of the Municipal Council and the Dolyns’ka Tax Police Department, seeking compensation for the damage caused by the unlawful seizure and confiscation of his car. 9. On 16 August 1999 the Dolyns’ka City Court awarded the applicant UAH 50,000[1] in compensation for moral and material damage. 10. On 15 March 2000 the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court allowed the protest of the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine lodged against this decision. It amended the decision of 16 August 1999 and reduced the amount of compensation to UAH 20,000[2]. 11. On 21 June 2000 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the further protest of the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged against the decision of 15 March 2000. The Supreme Court ruled that the UAH 20,000[3] compensation awarded to the applicant by the decision of 16 August 1999, as amended on 15 March 2000, had been reasonably established. 12. On 20 September 2000 the Dolyns’ska City Court initiated enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case and delivered the relevant writs of execution to the applicant. 13. On 12 December 2000 the Kyiv City Department of Justice informed the applicant that the State Treasury of Ukraine and its regional departments were responsible for such payments and therefore the writs of execution had to be forwarded to them. 14. On 18 July 2001 the State Treasury of Ukraine informed the applicant that it was not possible to execute the judgment because there were no relevant provisions in Ukrainian law (i.e. no relevant resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) authorising it. 15. On 15 May 2002 the National Bank of Ukraine transferred UAH 20,000[4] to the applicant’s account in execution of the judgment of 16 August 1999, as modified by the resolution of the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court on 15 March 2000.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant, Ms Khadra Mohammed Yuusuf, is a Somali national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Sint Maartensdijk (Netherlands). 7. The applicant, her husband and their two children entered the Netherlands on 10 October 1994. They were given temporary accommodation in a refugee holding centre. 8. While in the holding centre the applicant twice got into fights, in connection with which she was prosecuted and tried. She was sentenced to a fine of 500 Netherlands guilders (NLG), or ten days' detention in lieu, suspended for two years. 9. Three further children were born to the applicant and her husband after their arrival in the Netherlands. 10. The applicant, her husband and their children lodged applications for asylum in the Netherlands or, in the alternative, residence permits on humanitarian grounds. They were initially met with a refusal and pursued their case in objection and appeal proceedings. 11. On 6 October 2000, the competent administrative authority granted the applicant's husband and the children residence permits on humanitarian grounds; the applicant was refused a residence permit in view of her criminal record. On 14 June 2002 the Regional Court of The Hague confirmed this decision on appeal. 12. By decision of 31 July 2003 the Head of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst), writing on behalf of the Minister for Aliens Affairs and Integration, notified the applicant's husband that he would be granted Netherlands nationality.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. During the applicant's birth in a public hospital, he suffered a lack of oxygen due to a delayed Caesarean section, which resulted in the permanent paralysis of his arms and legs. 10. On 30 June 1989 the applicant, represented by his parents, filed a motion for medical malpractice against the three doctors who had assisted at his birth. 11. On 27 September 1993 the Munich Regional Court (Landgericht), by partial judgment, rejected the applicant's motion with regard to one of the doctors. 12. On 3 November 1993 the applicant filed an appeal against the partial judgment. 13. On 26 January 1995 the Munich Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's appeal. 14. On 26 March 1996 the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) refused to entertain the applicant's appeal on points of law. 15. On 4 December 1996 the Regional Court rejected the applicant's remaining claims. 16. On 8 January 1998 the Court of Appeal confirmed the Regional Court's judgment. 17. On 8 December 1998 the Federal Court of Justice refused to entertain the applicant's appeal on points of law. 18. On 18 April 2000 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to entertain the applicant's constitutional complaint.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicants were born in 1968 and 1964 and reside in London and Florence, respectively. 6. C.S. was the owner of a flat in Florence, which she had let to M.P. 7. On 21 December 1989 the applicants became the owners of the flat. 8. The applicants served formal notice on the tenant on 21 February 1990, informing him that they intended to terminate the lease when it expired on 30 June 1991, requiring him to vacate the premises by that date and giving him notice to appear before the Florence Magistrate's Court. 9. In a decision of 18 June 1990, that court formally fixed the termination of the lease for 15 November 1993 and ruled that the premises would have to be vacated by 15 September 1994. The decision became enforceable on 17 July 1990. 10. On 17 November 1994 one of the applicants, Mrs Ilaria Lo Tufo, signed a statutory declaration to the effect that she urgently needed to recover the use of the flat for her own accommodation. 11. On 25 May 1995 the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. 12. On 3 August 1995 they served notice on the tenant indicating that he would be evicted on 5 October 1995 by a bailiff. 13. Between 5 October 1995 and 1 October 1998 a bailiff made sixteen attempts to evict the tenant but each attempt proved unsuccessful. The applicants never obtained police assistance for the enforcement of the eviction. 14. On 21 July 1999, relying on section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant applied to the District Court for a stay of execution of the eviction. The court stayed the execution until 23 September 1999. 15. In October 2000 the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicants were able to recover the use of their flat.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the village of Grodovka, the Donetsk region of Ukraine. 9. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 10. In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the “Novogrodivska” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover unpaid salary for the years 1998-2000. 11. On 3 May 2001 the Novogrodivsky City Court found in favour of the applicant (рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded him UAH 7,406.21[1] in salary arrears and compensation for devaluation. The decision became effective on 14 May 2001 and was sent for execution to the Novogrodivsky City Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції). However, the decision was not executed, allegedly due to the failure of the Bailiffs’ Service to act in not selling the property of the Mining Company. 12. In the course of the enforcement proceedings, it was established that on 19 November 1998 the Donetsk Regional Arbitration Court (Арбітражний суд Донецької області) had instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the “Novogrodivska” Mining Company. 13. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivsky City Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute the court decision in his favour. On 18 July 2001 the City Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding no fault had been committed by that Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had presented a decision of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region of 30 August 2000 to the respondent company. This decision prohibited the enforcement of judgments against the company by selling its property, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against it. 14. On 1 November 2001 the Appellate Court of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 18 February 2002 the panel of three judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal. 15. On 26 December 2001 the ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital was entrenched in the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property. On 10 June 2003 the Constitutional Court found the moratorium to be compatible with the provisions of the Constitution. 16. On 12 May 2004 the full amount awarded to the applicant was transferred to his bank account, and on 13 May 2004 the enforcement proceedings were completed.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Sosnowiec. 6. On 12 June 1994 he was arrested on suspicion of murdering his common-law wife. 7. On 13 June 1994 the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged the applicant with homicide and remanded him in custody until 12 August 1994 in connection with the investigation against him. The prosecutor considered that, given the serious nature of the offence in question, keeping the applicant in custody was necessary to ensure that the process of obtaining evidence followed its proper course. On the same day the prosecutor ordered an autopsy. 8. On 23 June 1994 the applicant appealed and requested his release. 9. On 24 June and 4 July 1994 the prosecutor ordered expert opinions. On 6 July 1994 the prosecutor ordered a reconstitution of the events which had taken place on the day of the death. 10. On 11 July 1994 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 23 June 1994. It found the same justification for the applicant’s detention: the reasonable suspicion against him, the serious nature of the offence in question and the fear that the applicant might tamper with the evidence. 11. On 28 July 1994 the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor prolonged the applicant’s detention until 12 September 1994. 12. On 29 July 1994 the Sosnowiec District Court ordered that two psychiatric reports be obtained in order to establish the applicant’s criminal responsibility. 13. On 27 and 28 August 1994 the prosecutor ordered that two other medical reports be obtained. 14. On 5 September 1994 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 30 October 1994, relying on the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court referred also to the fact that two expert reports had to be prepared. They were submitted to the court on 9 September and 24 October 1994. 15. On 24 October 1994 the applicant obtained access to the case-file. 16. On 28 October 1994 the District Prosecutor submitted the bill of indictment to the Regional Court. The prosecutor asked the court to hear evidence from 38 witnesses. 17. The trial court held hearings on 12 January, 16 March, 21 March, 28 March, 1 June, 8 June, 20 June, 12 October and 12 December 1995, as well as on 28 March 1996. 18. On 28 March 1996 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. The court convicted the applicant as charged, and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. 19. On 30 May 1996 the applicant appealed. 20. On 13 August 1996 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. It pointed out that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and that certain facts required further clarification. 21. In the course of the retrial, the Regional Court held hearings on 10 December 1996, 27 February, 28 February, 26 March, 30 April, 8 May and 28 October 1997, as well as on 14 and 22 January 1998. The hearing scheduled for 17 February 1998 was adjourned. 22. At the hearings of 30 April 1997, 28 October 1997 and 17 February 1998 the applicant’s counsel applied for his release, but to no avail. 23. On 1 June 1998 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 November 1998. It made reference to the reasonableness of the suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court stressed the serious nature of that offence and the necessity to consider further evidence. 24. On 10 June 1998 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against that decision. He contested the reasonableness of the charge against his client, maintaining that it was solely based on presumptive evidence. He also submitted that the applicant’s prolonged detention no longer served the purpose of securing the proper course of the proceedings since all necessary evidence had been obtained by the courts. 25. On 24 June 1998 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. It pointed out that the principle referred to by the applicant, whereby detention exceeding two years could be prolonged only by the Supreme Court, did not apply to his case. The court observed that that principle concerned only the proceedings before the trial court and it was no longer valid once that court had delivered its judgment, even if the judgment was subsequently quashed by the appellate court. 26. On 30 July 1998 the applicant appealed against this decision. 27. On 3 August 1998 the Katowice Court of Appeal informed the applicant that no appeal lay against a decision given by an appellate court. 28. On 24 September 1998 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. It again convicted the applicant of homicide and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The court deducted from the sentence the period spent by the applicant in detention. 29. On 26 November 1998 the applicant’s lawyer appealed. 30. On 27 November 198 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 29 January 1999 in view of the applicant’s conviction and sentence the month before. 31. On 8 December 1998 the applicant challenged that decision before a court which did not have the necessary jurisdiction. Accordingly, on 11 January 1999 the matter was transferred to the Katowice Court of Appeal, which on 25 February 1999 dismissed both of his appeals. 32. On 26 April 1999 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court concerning the conviction and sentence. 33. On 6 March 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Kahramanmaraş. He was a civil servant at the time of the events giving rise to the application. 10. In 1990 the applicant was appointed to the Ölüdeniz Natural Park as a warden in charge of the sale of entry tickets. 11. On 29 July 1991 he was detained for selling tickets which had been fraudulently issued and crediting money to his account. In his police statement dated 29 July 1991 and in his statement to the public prosecutor on 30 July 1991, the applicant confessed that he had been involved in selling forged tickets together with two other persons. 12. On 30 July 1991 the Fethiye Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. 13. On 20 August 1991 the Fethiye public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Fethiye Assize Court, charging the applicant with embezzlement under Article 202 of the Criminal Code. 14. On 18 September 1991 the Fethiye Assize Court held its first hearing. Subsequently, the public prosecutor maintained that, as the applicant’s acts might constitute a breach of Article 342 of the Criminal Code regulating the offence of forgery, permission to prosecute was required from the local authority, pursuant to the Act on the Procedure for the Prosecution of Civil Servants. 15. On 30 December 1991 the first-instance court transferred the case file to the Fethiye District Council for investigation and ordered the suspension of the proceedings pending the decision of the District Council. It further ordered the applicant’s release from detention. 16. On 16 December 1992 the Fethiye District Governor decided that the applicant could be tried before the Fethiye Assize Court on account of the nature of the charges against him. 17. On 22 May 1993 the case file was remitted to the Fethiye Assize Court. 18. On 22 December 1993 the court found the applicant guilty of forgery under Article 342 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year, eleven months and ten days’ imprisonment. 19. On 6 December 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first-instance court on procedural grounds. 20. On 8 March 1995 the Fethiye Assize Court amended the procedural errors in its former judgment and handed down the same sentence against the applicant. The applicant appealed. 21. On 11 December 1995 the Court of Cassation, referring to the opinion of the principal public prosecutor dated 20 November 1995, which had not been communicated to the applicant, ruled that the first-instance court had failed to apply the legal provisions relevant to the crime in question. Consequently, it quashed the judgment of the Fethiye Assize Court and stated that the applicant’s acts, which amounted to embezzlement under Turkish law, should have been examined under Article 202 of the Criminal Code. 22. The case was subsequently remitted to the Fethiye Assize Court. In his defence submissions before the latter, the applicant denied that his acts constituted a breach of Article 202 of the Criminal Code and requested the court to abide by its judgment of 8 March 1995. 23. On 13 March 1996 the Fethiye Assize Court found the applicant guilty of embezzlement under Article 202 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced the applicant to seven years, nine months and ten days’ imprisonment and to a fine of 33,333,333 Turkish liras (TRL) (390 euros (EUR)). The applicant was also debarred from working in the civil service. 24. On 6 March 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Fethiye Assize Court.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Germany. He used to run a car rental business. 5. On 3 November 1994 the Limburg Prosecuting Office informed him that it had begun criminal investigations against him and three other persons on the suspicion of insurance fraud. They were suspected of having obtained reimbursement for non-existent car rental costs and of having requested payment for non-refundable kilometres. 6. On 4 November 1994, following the Wetzlar District Court's arrest warrant, the applicant was arrested on the suspicion that he would attempt to hinder the investigation proceedings (Verdunklungsgefahr). 7. On 29 November 1994 the District Court suspended the execution of the arrest warrant on the condition that the applicant cease to have contact with his co-suspects and any of the witnesses involved. 8. On 10 February 1997 the applicant and his co-suspects were indicted for fraud. 9. On 10 March 1997 the District Court revoked the arrest warrant. 10. On 12 January 2000 the Limburg Regional Court provisionally discontinued proceedings with the applicant's consent pursuant to Section 153a § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law below) on the condition that the applicant pay a sum of 3,500 DEM to the Association to Aid Criminal Offenders (Verein für Straffälligenhilfe). 11. On 21 March 2000, after the applicant had fulfilled this condition, the Regional Court, sitting as a chamber of three judges, permanently discontinued proceedings against the applicant but refused to grant him compensation for the time spent in detention on remand, finding that such compensation would not be equitable (entspricht nicht der Billigkeit), in particular as the applicant had waived any right to compensation. 12. The applicant appealed against this decision, arguing that he had never waived his right to compensation and that compensation would be equitable, as the criminal proceedings had caused him to lose his source of income and had prevented him from finishing his law studies. 13. By letter to the applicant's counsel of 18 May 2000, the presiding judge of the competent chamber of the Regional Court confirmed that if the proceedings had been pursued, the Regional Court would have opened proceedings against the applicant with regard to parts of the indictment. The applicant would then have been convicted with predominant probability (“Insoweit war auch mit bei weitem überwiegender Wahrscheinlichkeit mit Verurteilung zu rechnen”). In one of the cases of fraud, this predominant probability was based on the submissions of another accused and of a former suspect. In another case, a conviction for fraud was to be expected following the submission of various car rental receipts (“...war schon im Hinblick auf die Einreichung der diversen Mietwagenrechnungen mit einer Verurteilung wegen Betrugs zu rechnen”). 14. On 22 September 2000 the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal. It noted that granting compensation for prosecution measures lay within the discretion of the competent courts or prosecuting offices. The relevant Section 3 of the Act on Compensation for Prosecution Measures (Gesetz über die Entschädigung für Strafverfolgungs- massnahmen, see relevant domestic law below) was to be seen as an exception to the rule - according to this provision, compensation should be granted in special cases where the execution of provisional prosecution measures was considered to be grossly disproportionate (“grob unverhältnismässig”). This did not apply to the case against the applicant. 15. The Court of Appeal noted that the measures of prosecution instituted against the applicant were originally based on a strong suspicion (dringender Verdacht). If the proceedings had continued, the Regional Court would have opened proceedings against the applicant regarding a certain part of the indictment. The Court of Appeal found that taking into account a remaining suspicion (“verbleibender Tatverdacht”) when deciding on compensation was not in violation of the right to the presumption of innocence under Article 6 of the Convention, as it did not involve the establishment or allocation of guilt, but only constituted an admissible and necessary evaluation of the situation. Legal consequences of a non-punitive character, such as the refusal of compensation for prosecution measures, may be linked to such a remaining suspicion. This remaining suspicion, which the Regional Court took into account when deciding on compensation, was only relevant with regard to the question of whether to open proceedings and of whether the public interest in further prosecution could be overcome. It was not relevant with regard to the actual question of guilt or the probability of a conviction. 16. On 14 December 2000 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain the applicant's complaint against the court decisions and the letter of the Regional Court, finding that the principle of the presumption of innocence did not prevent the establishment and assessment of a remaining suspicion in a decision on the discontinuance of criminal proceedings before a conviction has taken place. It thus also did not prevent courts or prosecuting offices from taking this remaining suspicion into account when deciding on compensation. 17. The presumption of innocence prohibits imposing sanctions with a punitive or de facto punitive effect on an accused whose guilt has not been established in the relevant criminal proceedings. However, in a decision on the discontinuance of proceedings, legal consequences of a non-punitive character may be linked to a remaining suspicion, but it must become sufficiently clear from its reasoning that this does not occur out of the intention to establish or allocate guilt, but out of the intention to describe and assess the state of suspicion (Verdachtslage). This distinction had to be sufficiently expressed in the decision's reasons. In this respect, the context of all the given reasons had to be taken into account. 18. In the light of the above principles, the Federal Constitutional Court found that the impugned decisions were compatible with the German Basic Law. It noted that the Court of Appeal had refused to grant the applicant compensation under Section 3 of the Act on Compensation for Prosecution Measures on the ground that if the proceedings against the applicant had been pursued, the Regional Court would have opened court proceedings against the applicant based on parts of the indictment. This evaluation of the remaining suspicion with regard to the question of the opening of proceedings and overcoming the public interest in pursuing prosecution measures neither contained a declaration on the probability of the applicant's conviction, nor did it contain a criminal allocation of guilt.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Sofia. 5. On 11 May 1994 he was arrested and remanded in custody on charges of fraud. He was accused of having obtained in February 1994 a bank credit in the amount of 300,000 Bulgarian levs (which, at the relevant time were the equivalent of approximately 10,000 US dollars) by presenting himself under a false identity and through the use of forged documents. Three other persons, the applicant's alleged accomplices, were also charged in the same proceedings in relation to a number of separate counts of fraud and forgery. 6. The applicant had a criminal record which included convictions for thefts dating from 1991, when he was sentenced to four years and two months' imprisonment. As a result, the charges brought against him in 1994 concerned a case of aggravated recidivism, punishable by three to fifteen years' imprisonment. 7. The preliminary investigation was completed in the beginning of 1996 when an indictment was submitted to the Sofia City Court. 8. The court held hearings on 24 June and 16 October 1996, 14 January, 18 March, 13 June and 3 November 1997, 13 January, 8 April and 11 November 1998, 3 May, 29 June and 8 October 1999. The hearings were adjourned as witnesses or representatives of the civil plaintiffs did not appear or could not be found and summoned. On some occasions adjournments were necessary as one or more of the co-accused persons had not appeared. The applicant's absence was the reason for one adjournment, of the hearing held on 18 March 1997. 9. On 8 October 1999 the presiding judge, Mrs M., withdrew from the case. The reason for her withdrawal was pressure brought to bear by the Sofia City Prosecutor in relation to Mrs M.'s decisions to release the applicant on bail (see paragraph 32 below). The examination of the case restarted. 10. The hearings listed for 10 April, 22 June, 28 September and 21 December 2000 could not proceed as some of the co-accused persons had not appeared. The applicant was present at those hearings. 11. On 23 February 2001 the hearing was adjourned as the applicant's lawyer withdrew from the case shortly before the start of the hearing. 12. The hearings scheduled for 25 April, 18 May and 22 October 2001 and 22 February 2002 were also adjourned as several of the persons summoned had not appeared and additional evidence ought to be collected. 13. The applicant and another accused person did not appear at the hearing listed for 25 June 2002. The Sofia City Court ordered the applicant's arrest and remand in custody and adjourned the hearing. The applicant was not found before the date of the next hearing, 25 November 2002, which caused another adjournment. 14. The applicant appeared at the hearings on 27 March 2003 and 8 September 2003, but the case was adjourned as another accused person had been unable to attend. 15. At the hearing on 21 and 24 November 2003 the Sofia City Court heard several witnesses and adjourned the case as some of the witnesses had not appeared. 16. As of February 2005 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending before the Sofia City Court, a hearing having been listed for 1 March 2005. 17. Throughout the proceedings the Sofia City Court sought police assistance to secure the presence of the persons summoned for the hearings and imposed fines or ordered the arrest of persons who had not appeared without good cause. 18. On 11 May 1994 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. 19. The applicant appealed several times against his detention. Release on bail was repeatedly refused on the basis of Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant practice, according to which remand in custody was mandatory in all cases where the sentence faced went beyond a certain threshold of severity. In the present case the authorities also relied on paragraph 3 of Article 152 of the Code, as in force between 1995 and 1997, which provided that remand in custody was mandatory without exception where, inter alia, the accused person was a recidivist. 20. On 14 January 1997 the Sofia City Court decided to release the applicant on bail. Noting that to release the applicant would run contrary to the letter of Article 152 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court stated that nevertheless the continuation of the applicant's detention could not be reasonably justified. The court stated that numerous inexcusable delays had been caused by failure of witnesses or injured parties to appear or owing to police inaction and that the applicant should not bear the consequences. The court also noted that according to a medical report the applicant's mental health had deteriorated. In particular, he was passive, depressed and his behaviour revealed a high risk of a suicidal crisis. 21. The applicant paid the recognisance and was released on 21 January 1997. 22. Upon the prosecutor's appeal, on 5 March 1997 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Sofia City Court's order of 14 January 1997 and ordered the applicant's remand in custody. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting release, regard being had to the fact that the applicant had a criminal record and could re-offend or abscond. 23. The applicant remained free until 18 March 1997. On that day he failed to appear at the hearing in the criminal case against him and was arrested several hours later, apparently at his home address. 24. Between September 1997 and November 1998 the applicant unsuccessfully sought release on bail stating, inter alia, that he had had no intention to abscond, which was allegedly demonstrated by the fact that he had been found by the police at his address. The courts based their refusals on Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant practice, while also noting that the applicant had not appeared at the hearing of 18 March 1997 and that therefore there was a risk of absconding. 25. On 11 November 1998 the Sofia City Court ordered the applicant's release on bail stating that the continuation of his pre-trial detention - which had exceeded four years - was unjustifiable. 26. The applicant paid the recognisance and was released on an unspecified date in November 1998. 27. Upon the prosecutor's appeal, on 26 February 1999 the Sofia Appellate Court quashed the City Court's decision of 11 November 1998 and ordered the applicant's remand in custody, reiterating that there was a danger of absconding. 28. Despite the Appellate Court's decision the applicant remained free. On 3 May and 29 June 1999 he appeared at the hearings in the criminal case. 29. On 29 June 1999 the Sofia City Court issued a new order for the applicant's release. 30. Upon the prosecutor's appeal, on 2 August 1999 the Sofia Appellate Court again ordered the applicant's remand in custody. The court relied on Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant practice. 31. The applicant was arrested on 3 August 1999 pursuant to the Appellate Court's decision. 32. At the hearing held on 8 October 1999 the Sofia City Court found that it was unable to rule on the applicant's request for release on bail. That was so because the prosecutor had requested from the Supreme Judicial Council, the body which appoints, promotes and dismisses judges, an authorisation to prosecute Mrs M., the presiding judge, in relation to her decisions to release the applicant on bail. 33. On 20 December 1999 the applicant appealed against his continuing pre‑trial detention. 34. On 21 January 2000 the Sofia City Court dismissed the appeal. The court noted that the applicant was a recidivist and that therefore the danger of his absconding and re-offending was presumed under the new wording of Article 152 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force since 1 January 2000 (see paragraph 42 below). Since the available evidence did not establish facts capable of overturning the presumption, the applicant should remain in custody. 35. Upon the applicant's appeal, on 25 February 2000 the Sofia Appellate Court quashed the Sofia City Court's decision and ordered the applicant's release on bail, criticising the lower court for having interpreted the relevant new provisions wrongly. The applicant was released on the same day. 36. All decisions of the Sofia Appellate Court were taken in private. On at least one occasion the Appellate Court decided after having received comments by the Appellate Prosecutor's Office which were not communicated to the applicant. 37. The applicant was arrested again on 31 March 2003, pursuant to the order of the Sofia City Court of 25 June 2002, as he had failed to appear at the hearing listed on that day (see paragraph 13 above). 38. On 31 March 2003 the applicant appealed against his detention. On 7 April 2003 his appeal was granted and he was released. The court accepted that the applicant's failure to appear on 25 June 2002 did not disclose a danger of him absconding, taking into consideration the applicant's explanation and his diligent behaviour in the proceedings. The court also took into account the fact that the applicant had already spent an excessively lengthy period in pre-trial detention, which ran contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Convention.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicants (husband and wife) were born in 1933 and 1953, respectively, and live in Virovitica, Croatia. 5. During a military operation undertaken during the Homeland War by the Croatian Army, in August 1995, the applicants' house in Karin Gornji, Croatia was destroyed. 6. On 10 September 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Obrovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Obrovcu) against the State seeking damages for their destroyed property. 7. On 6 November 1999 the Amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”) entered into force. The amended legislation provided that all proceedings instituted against the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed. 8. On 1 December 1999 the Obrovac Municipal Court dismissed the applicants' claim. The applicants appealed. 9. On 8 March 2000 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) returned the case file to the first-instance court with an instruction to stay the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation. 10. On 23 March 2000 the Obrovac Municipal Court stayed the proceedings. 11. On 31 July 2003 new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force. 12. The Government submitted that the applicants' proceedings had resumed pursuant to the above legislation and that they are currently pending before the second-instance court. The applicants submitted that they had received no decision to resume the proceedings.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Rouse. 10. In 1976 the applicant started working for the Cargo Railway Station in Rouse and until 1989 she formally occupied the positions of dormitories supervisor and facilities and social activities co‑ordinator. In fact, throughout this period the applicant was working – under the instructions of her manager – as a typist at the local section of the Bulgarian Communist Party. This scheme had apparently been devised because the staff tables did not provide for a typist position. 11. Accordingly, the applicant's employment agreements and job descriptions did not mention her actual duties, which included mostly typewriting. This arrangement was apparently never called into question by the applicant or her employer. 12. Between 1989 and 1996 the applicant worked as an inspector at the human resources department of the Station. 13. In late December 1995 or in early January 1996 the applicant's employer, acting pursuant to a medical recommendation on the nature of work she was fit to perform, moved her to a different position – internal mail carrier. 14. In 1979 the applicant started experiencing pain in her hands and arms. Initially she was losing the sensitivity in her fingers and could not hold objects. With the passage of time the pain got stronger and her hands started to swell and tremble, especially after long periods of typing. 15. In December 1994 the applicant was examined by the Diagnostic Expert Commission (“the DEC”) at the Rouse Regional Hospital. In a decision of 15 December 1994 the DEC found that the applicant was suffering from vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper limbs, a disease which features on the Table of Occupational Diseases. However, the DEC, relying solely on the applicant's job descriptions, concluded that the positions she had occupied (dormitories supervisor, facilities and social activities co‑ordinator) did not entail increased strain on her upper limbs. Accordingly, it qualified her disease as non-occupational, finding no causal link between the conditions of work and the disease. Apparently the DEC refused to examine evidence (including affidavits) submitted by the applicant to prove her actual duties. 16. The applicant appealed to the Central Diagnostic Expert Commission (“the CDEC”), arguing that her de facto duties were different from the ones enumerated in her job descriptions. As no witness testimony was admissible, she again submitted affidavits from her managers to the effect that she had actually worked as a typist. On 15 March 1995 the CDEC dismissed the appeal, fully endorsing the reasons of the DEC. Apparently it refused to take into account any other evidence purporting to establish the actual duties of the applicant. 17. In October 1995 the applicant was admitted for treatment at the Medical Institute for Transport Workers in Sofia. On 19 December 1995 the DEC at the Institute examined the applicant and found that she suffered from osteohondrosis cervicalis. It also reached the conclusion that the disease was not an occupational one, being unrelated to the duties of the applicant as set out in her job descriptions. 18. The applicant appealed against this decision to the CDEC. By a decision of 13 February 1996 it upheld the ruling as to the non-occupational character of the applicant's disease and fully endorsed the DEC's reasons. 19. On 19 March 1996 the applicant brought an action against her employer under Article 200 of the Labour Code of 1986. She alleged that the disease of her hands had developed as a result of her work. In fact, between 1976 and 1989 she had worked as a typist, even though her job descriptions did not reflect that. The rulings of the DEC and the CDEC that her disease was not work‑related were based solely on these job descriptions; the commissions had not inquired into the reality of the situation. She requested the court to summon witnesses to testify about her real duties and to appoint an expert to establish the occupational character of her disease. 20. Two witnesses – former managers of the applicant – testified during the trial. They stated that the applicant had in fact worked as a typist, in accordance with the orders of her employer, and provided details about her workload. 21. Two expert witnesses were appointed by the court to give conclusions about the applicant's state of health and about the occupational or non‑occupational character of her disease. The first expert concluded that the applicant was suffering from vegetative neuropathy of the hands. The second expert submitted a report in which she stated that the cause for the applicant's disease could be her conditions of work, as described by her managers. Both experts confirmed their conclusions at a public hearing on 23 October 1996. 22. The Rouse District Court gave judgment on 30 October 1996, dismissing the applicant's action. It stated, inter alia: “... the court considers the action to be ill-founded. The prerequisites for finding the employer liable under Article 200 of the Labour Code ... are a valid employment agreement and a convincingly established occupational disease. The occupational character of the disease is determined by the special medical commissions ... The existence of a finding [made by the DEC and ascertaining the occupational character of the disease] is an absolute precondition for holding the employer liable under Article 200 of the Labour Code. The specific character of the [subject‑matter of the inquiry] has led the legislature to establish specialised medical bodies to give a conclusion as to the type [of the disease] and as to the causal link between the conditions of work and the disease. In the case at hand the [DEC and the CDEC] have concluded that the [applicant's] disease was not occupational and was not related to her conditions of work ... [T]he court examining the dispute under Article 200 of the Labour Code may rule as to the occupational character of the disease only if no medical documents have been issued by the [DEC].” 23. The applicant appealed to the Rouse Regional Court. On 27 December 1996 that court upheld the lower court's judgment in the following terms: “The [District Court's] judgment is well-founded. After assessing the collected and relevant evidence, the District Court correctly concluded that the occupational character of the [applicant's] disease, ... which is one of the prerequisites for holding her employer liable under Article 200 of the Labour Code, has not been convincingly established. The first‑instance court has correctly decided that the occupational character of the disease may be established by the court only if no documents have been issued by the specialised medical bodies ... The District Court has taken into account that in the case at hand these bodies have reached the categorical conclusion ... that the disease of the [applicant] was not related to her working conditions and was thus not occupational.” 24. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. That court dismissed the petition in a final judgment of 18 November 1997. It held: “The acts issued by the specialised medical bodies indicate that [the applicant's] disease was not occupational, i.e. no causal link was found between the disease and the working conditions. The expert witnesses' conclusions do not alter this finding. The [first expert] concluded that the disease “vegetative polyneuropathy of the hands” features on the table of occupational diseases. This fact is not at issue, but the [employer's] liability under Article 200 of the Labour Code presupposes not only the existence of the respective disease, but also the establishment of a causal link between the disease and the conditions of work. This causal link has not been established by the [second] expert either. In her report she found that activities related to type-writing are a prerequisite for the development of vegetative polyneuropathy. However, the fact that type‑writing is in general a prerequisite for this disease does not prove the existence of a causal link between the [applicant's] conditions of work and [her] disease. ...The specialised medical bodies are the administrative organs empowered by law to ascertain the existence of an occupational disease and the causal link between the disease and the [conditions of] work. The [lower] courts correctly held that the circumstances that [these organs] are authorised to examine may be examined by the court having cognisance of the action under Article 200 of the Labour Code only in the absence of findings made by these organs. The [applicant] has not established before the specialised medical bodies the existence of a causal link between [her] disease and the conditions of work as a typist ... Therefore the conclusions of the [lower] courts that her action is unfounded are correct.”

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

10. The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Dettingen. 11. In August 1996 the Dettingen municipal authorities imposed a fine of 120 German marks (DEM), plus costs amounting to DEM 36, on V.B., the applicant's son, for having exceeded the speed limit of 50 km/h by 28 km/h on the evening of 21 May 1996, when travelling in a car belonging to the Trinkomat private limited company (Regulations 3 § 3 (1) and 49 § 1 (3) of the Road Traffic Regulations and section 24 of the Road Traffic Act – see “Relevant domestic law” below). The applicant is the owner and manager of that company. 12. On 4 September 1996 V.B. lodged an objection against the administrative decision imposing the fine. 13. On 12 March 1997 the trial in the case opened before the Bad Urach District Court. V.B. pleaded not guilty, stating that about fifteen other persons could have been driving the company car in question on that day. The applicant, summoned as a witness, refused to give evidence, as he was entitled to do as a family member. The hearing was adjourned to 19 March 1997. 14. On 13 March 1997 around 10 a.m. the applicant, on being asked by a policeman to give evidence about his employees in connection with the proceedings against his son, stated again that he did not wish to do so and that none of his employees was currently working on the business premises. On the same day a police officer, on the order of the Bad Urach District Court judge, asked the city of Dettingen to provide a passport photograph of the applicant's son. Police enquiries from the Dettingen trade authorities (Gewerbeamt) about the applicant's employees at the relevant time had led to nothing. 15. On 13 March 1997, at an unknown time, the Bad Urach District Court, in the context of the above proceedings against V.B., issued a warrant to search the business and residential premises of the applicant. The warrant read as follows: “In the context of the preliminary investigations against ... [V.B.] ... concerning the contravention of a traffic regulation, pursuant to Article 33 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without a prior hearing, in accordance with Articles 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106 § 1, 111 et seq., and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 46 of the Contraventions of Regulations Act, 1. the search of the business and residential premises of the father, Jürgen Buck, ..., 3 ... Street, Dettingen/Erms, Trinkomat company; 2. the seizure of documents that reveal the identity of the employees of Trinkomat in ... Dettingen between 20 May and 22 May 1996 are ordered. Reasons: The son of the manager of Trinkomat, who is charged with having committed, on 21 May 1996, a contravention of Regulation 3 of the Road Traffic Regulations with a company car, has stated at the trial hearing on 12 March 1997 that a driver employed by the company could have committed the offence. ...” 16. The search of the residential and business premises in Dettingen, a town of some 10,000 inhabitants, was effected the same day around 2 p.m. by four police officers from the local police station. Several documents, such as personnel files and statements on working hours, were seized; copies were made and the originals were given back to the applicant the next day. The documents disclosed the names of at least six persons, four women and two men, who had been employed by the applicant's company at the relevant time and revealed, furthermore, that another relative of the applicant could have been driving the company car at the time of the speeding offence. The applicant objected to the search and, assisted by counsel, appealed against the search and seizure decision on 13 March 1997, the very day on which the warrant had been issued. 17. On 21 March 1997 the Tübingen Regional Court, in a decision addressed to V.B., dismissed the appeal of 13 March 1997. It considered that the appeal against the search warrant was inadmissible as it was devoid of purpose (prozessual überholt), the search having been effected in the meantime. The relevance of the few documents seized could be established without the need for a further procedure. The appeal against the seizure order was ill-founded, as the documents seized were relevant for the assessment of the evidence because they could show whether, as asserted by the appellant, one of the company's employees had committed the traffic offence in question. Moreover, the seizure had not been disproportionate because copies of the originals had been filed and the originals handed back. 18. On 21 May 1997 the Tübingen Regional Court, upon a complaint by the applicant's representative, re-examined the applicant's appeal, declaring it inadmissible as far as the search warrant was concerned and unfounded as to the seizure order. In these respects the court repeated its earlier reasoning. The Regional Court added that its earlier decision of 21 March 1997 had become devoid of purpose and, for the sake of clarity, quashed it. 19. On 30 June 1997 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. He submitted in particular that the District Court, at the hearing of 12 March 1997, had been unable to establish whether the person on the radar photo was V.B. He further stated that the documents seized showed that none of the six other persons who had been working for the applicant's company at the relevant time could have been the person shown on the radar photo. 20. On 13 September 1997 a panel of three judges of the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the complaint. The Constitutional Court disagreed with the Regional Court's finding that the appeal against the search warrant was inadmissible for the sole reason that the search had already been carried out. According to the Constitutional Court, that finding disregarded the principle of effective legal protection as guaranteed by Article 19 § 4 of the Basic Law. In support of its view, the Constitutional Court referred to its decision of 30 April 1997, which had reversed its former case-law on the point. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court considered it inappropriate to admit the constitutional complaint. Indeed, when examining the lawfulness of the seizure order, the Regional Court had also, incidentally, addressed the question of the lawfulness of the search order. In any event, the impugned search warrant was obviously lawful. This decision was served on 24 September 1997. 21. On 19 March 1997, in the resumed trial proceedings, the Bad Urach District Court rendered its judgment against V.B. It found him guilty of having negligently exceeded a speed limit, imposed a fine of DEM 120 (approximately 61 euros) on him in accordance with the uniform scale of fines (Bußgeldkatalog) for the various road-traffic regulatory offences, and ordered him to bear the costs of the proceedings. 22. As regards V.B.'s personal background, the District Court noted that V.B. had had his driving licence since 1991, that he drove between 40,000 and 50,000 km per year and that there was no record of previous traffic offences. 23. The District Court, having regard to expert technical evidence, found that the radar check had been properly carried out and that the measurements were correct. Moreover, having compared the photographs taken on the occasion of the radar check, in particular the enlargement prepared by the expert, and V.B.'s passport photograph taken in 1994, which had been retained in the administrative files of the Dettingen municipal authorities, the court reached the conclusion that it was V.B. who had been driving the car. In this respect, the court compared the form of the face, the nose, the position of the eyes and the eyebrows. Furthermore, although V.B. had meanwhile grown a beard, the lower part of the face on the radar photos and of V.B.'s face on the passport photo, showing him without a beard, clearly matched. There were no indications that any other person with the same characteristics had been driving the car at the relevant time. 24. On 19 August 1997 the Stuttgart Court of Appeal dismissed V.B.'s request for leave to appeal.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, in the Donetsk Region, Ukraine. 5. In 2001, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the “Novogrodovskaya” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover unpaid salary for the years 1998 to 2000. 6. On 24 May 2001, the Novogrodovsky City Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded him UAH 3,786.07[1] in salary arrears and compensation. The decision became effective the same day and was sent for execution to the Novogrodovsky City Bailiffs’ Service. 7. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovsky City Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute the court decision in his favour. On 19 September 2001, the City Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had presented the decisions of the Commercial Court of 30 August 2000 and 14 May 2001 to the respondent company. These decisions prohibited the enforcement of decisions against the company by selling its property, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against it. 8. On 1 November 2001, the Appellate Court of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 18 February 2002, the panel of three judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal. 9. On 26 December 2001, the ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital, was entrenched in the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property. 10. On 23 December 2002 the Donetsk Regional Economic Court prohibited the Bailiffs from enforcing the judgments against the debtor company due to the bankruptcy proceedings. This prohibition was lifted in April 2003. 11. On 13 January 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service, following the restructuring of the debtor company, replaced the debtor by its legal successor, the Selydivvugillya State-owned Company. The same day the enforcement proceedings were transferred accordingly to another Local Bailiffs’ Service for further actions. 12. According to the Government, on 12 May 2004 the awarded amount was paid to the applicant in full and the enforcement proceedings were completed.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicants were born in 1956, 1970, 1966, 1962 and 1963 respectively and live in the town of Zhovti Vody, Ukraine. 5. In 1999, all the applicants instituted separate proceedings in the Zheltovodsky Town Court of Dniepropetrovsk Region against their employer, the Elektron-Gaz State-owned company, in order to receive salary arrears and other payments. In 2000-2001, four of the applicants instituted new proceedings in the same court against the same enterprise to receive further payments and compensation. 6. On 9 March 1999, the court found for Mr Grishechkin and awarded him UAH 4,055.35 (around EUR 580). On 11 September 2001, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him UAH 8,148.98 (around EUR 1,165). 7. On 30 June 1999, the court found for Mr Kayurov and awarded him UAH 1,801.63 (around EUR 257). On 13 January 2000, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him UAH 1,242.92 (around EUR 178). 8. On 21 December 1999, the court found for Mr Zavgorodyanskiy and awarded him UAH 4,199.32 (around EUR 600). 9. On 9 December 1999, the court found for the Ms Tomayly and awarded her UAH 1,642.24 (around EUR 235). On 26 April 2001, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded her UAH 851.72 (around EUR 122). 10. On 9 December 1999, the court found for Ms Lopatina and awarded her UAH 1,125.59 (around EUR 161). On 16 November 2001, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded her UAH 812.41 (around EUR 116). 11. In 2001-2002 the applicants filed several complaints to the different State institutions about the non-enforcement of the above judgments given in their favour. By a letter of 28 March 2002, the applicants were informed by the Dniepropetrovsk Justice Department that the judgments could not be executed due to the operation of the Law of Ukraine “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property” concerning part of the company’s property and the practical impossibility of selling the remainder. 12. On 7 March 2003 bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against the debtor company. 13. In March 2004 all judgments given in favour of the applicants were enforced in full and the enforcement proceedings were completed.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine. 5. In 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kuybyshevskiy Local Court of Donetsk against his former employer, a State-owned mining company, in order to receive salary arrears. 6. On 23 January 2002 the court found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 5,089.99[1]. This judgment was not appealed against and came into force on 24 February 2002. On 26 February the Kuybyshevsky Local Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce the above judgment. 7. By letter of 9 August 2002, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant about the measures taken by the bailiffs to enforce the judgment and the limitations on enforcement proceedings due to the operation of the Law of Ukraine “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”. 8. On 29 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service, following the restructuring of the debtor company, replaced the debtor by its legal successor, the Donetskvugillya State-owned Company. The enforcement proceedings were transferred accordingly to another Local Bailiffs’ Service for further actions in November 2003. 9. On 11 May 2004 the awarded amount was paid to the applicant in full and the enforcement proceedings were completed.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

13. The applicant was born in 1949 and is currently being held in İmralı Prison (Mudanya, Bursa, Turkey). Prior to his arrest, he was the leader of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 14. On 9 October 1998 the applicant was expelled from Syria, where he had been living for many years. He arrived the same day in Greece, where the Greek authorities asked him to leave Greek territory within two hours and refused his application for political asylum. On 10 October 1998 the applicant travelled to Moscow in an aircraft that had been chartered by the Greek secret services. His application for political asylum in Russia was accepted by the Duma, but the Russian Prime Minister did not implement that decision. 15. On 12 November 1998 the applicant went to Rome, where he made an application for political asylum. The Italian authorities initially detained him but subsequently placed him under house arrest. Although they refused to extradite him to Turkey, they also rejected his application for refugee status and the applicant had to bow to pressure for him to leave Italy. After spending either one or two days in Russia, he returned to Greece, probably on 1 February 1999. The following day (2 February 1999), the applicant was taken to Kenya. He was met at Nairobi Airport by officials from the Greek embassy and accommodated at the ambassador's residence. He lodged an application with the Greek ambassador for political asylum in Greece, but never received a reply. 16. On 15 February 1999 the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Mr Öcalan had been on board an aircraft that had landed in Nairobi on 2 February 1999 and had entered Kenyan territory accompanied by Greek officials without declaring his identity or going through passport control. It added that the Kenyan Minister for Foreign Affairs had summoned the Greek ambassador in Nairobi in order to elicit information about the applicant's identity. After initially stating that the person concerned was not Mr Öcalan, on being pressed by the Kenyan authorities the Greek ambassador had gone on to acknowledge that it was in fact him. The Kenyan Minister for Foreign Affairs had been informed by the Greek ambassador that the authorities in Athens had agreed to arrange for Mr Öcalan's departure from Kenya. The Kenyan Minister for Foreign Affairs also stated that Kenyan diplomatic missions abroad had been the target of terrorist attacks and that the applicant's presence in Kenya constituted a major security risk. In those circumstances, the Kenyan government was surprised that Greece, a State with which it enjoyed friendly relations, could knowingly have put Kenya in such a difficult position, exposing it to suspicion and the risk of attacks. Referring to the Greek ambassador's role in the events, the Kenyan government indicated that it had serious reservations about his credibility and requested his immediate recall. The Kenyan Minister for Foreign Affairs added that the Kenyan authorities had played no part in the applicant's arrest and had had no say in the choice of his final destination. The Minister had not been informed of any operations by Turkish forces at the time of the applicant's departure and there had been no consultations between the Kenyan and Turkish governments on the subject. 17. On the final day of his stay in Nairobi, the applicant was informed by the Greek ambassador after the latter had returned from a meeting with the Kenyan Minister for Foreign Affairs that he was free to leave for the destination of his choice and that the Netherlands were prepared to accept him. On 15 February 1999 Kenyan officials went to the Greek embassy to take Mr Öcalan to the airport. The Greek ambassador said that he wished to accompany the applicant to the airport in person and a discussion between the ambassador and the Kenyan officials ensued. In the end, the applicant got into a car driven by a Kenyan official. On the way to the airport, this car left the convoy and, taking a route reserved for security personnel in the international transit area of Nairobi Airport, took him to an aircraft in which Turkish officials were waiting for him. The applicant was then arrested after boarding the aircraft at approximately 8 p.m. 18. The Turkish courts had issued seven warrants for Mr Öcalan's arrest and a wanted notice (Red Notice) had been circulated by Interpol. In each of those documents, the applicant was accused of founding an armed gang in order to destroy the territorial integrity of the Turkish State and of instigating various terrorist acts that had resulted in loss of life. On the flight from Kenya to Turkey, the applicant was accompanied by an army doctor from the moment of his arrest. A video recording and photographs taken of Mr Öcalan in the aircraft for use by the police were leaked to the press and published. In the meantime, the inmates of İmralı Prison were transferred to other prisons. 19. The applicant was kept blindfolded throughout the flight except when the Turkish officials wore masks. The blindfold was removed as soon as the officials put their masks on. According to the Government, the blindfold was removed as soon as the aircraft entered Turkish airspace. The applicant was taken into custody at İmralı Prison on 16 February 1999. On the journey from the airport in Turkey to İmralı Prison, he wore a hood. In photographs that were taken on the island of İmralı in Turkey, the applicant appears without a hood or blindfold. He later said that he had been given tranquillisers, probably at the Greek embassy in Nairobi. 20. From 16 February 1999 onwards, the applicant was interrogated by members of the security forces. On 20 February 1999 a judge ruled on the basis of information in the case file that he should remain in police custody for a further three days as the interrogation had not been completed. 21. Judges and prosecutors from the Ankara National Security Court arrived on the island of İmralı on 21 February 1999. 22. According to the applicant, on 22 February 1999 sixteen lawyers instructed by his family applied to the National Security Court for permission to see him. They were informed verbally that only one lawyer would be allowed access. Lawyers who went to Mudanya (the embarkation point for the island of İmralı) on 23 February 1999 were told by the administrative authorities that they could not visit the applicant. The applicant also alleges that his lawyers were harassed by a crowd at the instigation of plain-clothes police officers or at least with their tacit approval. 23. As soon as the applicant's detention began, the island of İmralı was decreed a prohibited military zone. According to the applicant, the security arrangements in his case were managed by a “crisis desk” set up at Mudanya. It was the crisis desk that was responsible for granting lawyers and other visitors access to the applicant. According to the Government, special measures were taken to ensure the applicant's safety. He had many enemies who might have been tempted to make an attempt on his life, and it was for security reasons that lawyers were searched. 24. On 22 February 1999 the public prosecutor at the Ankara National Security Court questioned the applicant and took a statement from him as an accused. The applicant told the prosecutor that he was the founder of the PKK and its current leader. Initially, his and the PKK's aim had been to found an independent Kurdish State, but with the passage of time they had changed their objective and sought to secure a share of power for the Kurds as a free people who had played an important role in the founding of the Republic. The applicant confessed that village guards were a prime target for the PKK. He also confirmed that the PKK had used violent methods against civilians, in particular from 1987 onwards, but that he was personally opposed to such methods and had tried in vain to prevent their being used. He told the prosecutor that the warlords who wanted to seize power within the PKK had exerted part of their pressure on the Kurdish population; some of these warlords had been tried and found guilty by the PKK and had been executed with his personal approval. He acknowledged that the Turkish government's estimate of the number of those killed or wounded as a result of the PKK's activities was fairly accurate, that the actual number might even be higher, and that he had ordered the attacks as part of the armed struggle being waged by the PKK. He added that he had decided in 1993 to declare a ceasefire, acting on a request by the Turkish President, Mr Özal, which had been conveyed to him by the Kurdish leader Celal Talabani. The applicant also told the prosecutor that after leaving Syria on 9 October 1998 he had gone first to Greece and then to Russia and Italy. When the latter two countries refused to grant him the status of political refugee, he had been taken to Kenya by the Greek secret services. 25. On 23 February 1999 the applicant appeared before a judge of the Ankara National Security Court, who ordered that he should be detained pending trial. The applicant did not apply to the National Security Court to have that decision set aside. Before the judge he repeated the statement he had made to the prosecutor. He said that decisions taken within the PKK were submitted to him as founder and leader of the organisation for final approval. In the period from 1973 to 1978, the PKK's activities had been political. In 1977 and 1978, the PKK had organised armed attacks on the ağalar (major landowners). In 1979, following a visit by the applicant to Lebanon, the PKK had begun its paramilitary preparations. Since 1984, the PKK had carried on an armed struggle within Turkey. The regional leaders decided on armed actions and the applicant confirmed the general plan for such actions. He had taken the strategic and tactical decisions for the organisation as a whole. The units had carried out the decisions. 26. On the day after the applicant's arrival in Turkey, his Turkish lawyer, Mr Feridun Çelik, asked to visit him. He was prevented by members of the security forces from leaving the premises of the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association and was subsequently arrested together with seven other lawyers. 27. At Istanbul Airport on 17 February 1999, Ms Böhler, Ms Prakken and their partner Mr Koppen were refused leave to enter Turkey to visit the applicant, on the grounds that they could not represent him in Turkey and that Ms Böhler's past history (she was suspected of having campaigned against Turkey's interests and of having taken part in meetings organised by the PKK) created a risk of prejudice to public order in Turkey. 28. On 25 February 1999 the applicant was able to talk to two of the sixteen lawyers who had asked to see him, Mr Z. Okçuoğlu and Mr H. Korkut. The first conversation took place in the presence of a judge and of members of the security forces wearing masks. The latter decided that it should not last longer than twenty minutes. The record of that conversation was handed over to the National Security Court. The applicant's other representatives were given leave to have their authority to act before the Court signed and to see their client later. 29. During the preliminary investigation between 15 February 1999, when the applicant was arrested, and 24 April 1999, when the trial began, the applicant had twelve meetings in private with his lawyers. The dates and duration of the meetings were as follows: 11 March (45 minutes), 16 March (1 hour), 19 March (1 hour), 23 March (57 minutes), 26 March (1 hour 27 minutes), 2 April (1 hour), 6 April (1 hour), 8 April (61 minutes), 12 April (59 minutes), 15 April (1 hour), 19 April (1 hour) and 22 April (1 hour). 30. According to the applicant, his conversations with his lawyers were monitored from behind glass panels and filmed with a video camera. After the first two short visits, the applicant's contact with his lawyers was restricted to two visits per week, lasting an hour each. On each visit, the lawyers were searched five times and required to fill in a very detailed questionnaire. He and his advisers were not allowed to exchange documents or take notes at their meetings. The applicant's representatives were unable to give him either a copy of his case file (other than the bill of indictment, which was served by the prosecution) or any other material that would allow him to prepare his defence. 31. According to the Government, no restrictions were placed on the applicant as regards either the number of visits by his lawyers or their duration. Apart from the first visit, which took place under the supervision of a judge and members of the security forces, the meetings were held subject to the restrictions provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to ensure their safety, the lawyers were taken to the island of İmralı by boat after embarking at a private quay. Hotel rooms were booked for them near the embarkation point. According to the Government, no restrictions were placed on the applicant's correspondence. 32. In the meantime, on 2 March 1999, delegates of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited İmralı Prison. In a letter of 22 March 1999 to the representatives of the Government, they indicated that the applicant was physically in good health and his cell was comfortable. The CPT drew the Government's attention to the fact that the applicant's solitary confinement and his limited access to the open air could affect him psychologically. 33. The CPT delegates next visited İmralı Prison, where the applicant is the sole inmate, as part of their mission to Turkey from 2 to 14 September 2001. The delegates found that the cell occupied by the applicant was large enough to accommodate a prisoner and equipped with a bed, table, armchair and bookshelves. It also had an air-conditioning system, washing and toilet facilities and a window overlooking an inner courtyard. The applicant had access to books, newspapers and a radio, but not to television programmes or a telephone. However, he received twice daily medical checks by doctors and, in principle, was visited by his lawyers once a week. 34. On its visit of 16-17 February 2003, the CPT noted that visits to the applicant by his lawyers and members of his family were often cancelled owing to adverse weather conditions and inadequate means of transport. 35. In a bill of indictment preferred on 24 April 1999 (and joined to several others that had been drawn up in the applicant's absence by various public prosecutors' offices between 1989 and 1998), the public prosecutor at the Ankara National Security Court accused the applicant of activities carried out for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. He sought the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. 36. The case file ran to 17,000 pages and had been prepared by joining the files in seven sets of proceedings that were pending against the applicant in various national security courts. The applicant's lawyers were given access to the case file and the bill of indictment on 7 May 1999. Since the judicial authorities had not been able to supply a copy of the file, the applicant's lawyers had brought their own photocopier and finished copying the file on 15 May 1999. The prosecution had omitted to include certain documents in it, such as those concerning the applicant's arrest in Kenya and his transfer to Turkey. 37. The first two hearings, held in Ankara on 24 and 30 March 1999 in the applicant's absence, were taken up with procedural matters, such as third-party applications to intervene in the proceedings or the measures to be taken in readiness for the hearings on the island of İmralı and to enable the parties to take part in and members of the public to attend the trial. According to the Government, allegations that the lawyers were harassed by the police when they emerged from the first hearing in Ankara on 24 March 1999 have been the subject of a criminal investigation. 38. From 31 May to 29 June 1999, the National Security Court held eight hearings attended by the applicant on the island of İmralı. The applicant told the court, among other things, that he stood by his statements to the prosecutor and the judge. He confirmed that he was the most senior PKK agent and leader of the organisation and that he had instructed the members of the organisation to carry out certain acts. He said that he had not been ill-treated or verbally abused since his arrest. The applicant's representatives argued that the National Security Court could not be regarded as an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant stated that, for his part, he accepted the court's jurisdiction. 39. The applicant said that he was willing to cooperate with the Turkish State in order to bring to an end the acts of violence associated with the Kurdish question and promised to halt the PKK's armed struggle. He indicated that he wished to “work for peace and fraternity and achieve that aim within the Republic of Turkey”. He observed that, while he had initially envisaged an armed struggle for the independence of the population of Kurdish origin, that had been in reaction to the political pressure the government had exerted on the Kurdish population. When circumstances changed, he had decided on a different approach and limited his demands to autonomy or to a recognition of the Kurds' cultural rights within a democratic society. He accepted political responsibility for the PKK's general strategy, but disclaimed criminal liability for acts of violence which went beyond the PKK's stated policy. In order to highlight the rapprochement between the PKK and the government, he applied to have the government officials who had conducted negotiations with the PKK examined as witnesses for the defence. That application was refused by the National Security Court. 40. The applicant's lawyers' applications for the communication of additional documents or for further investigations in order to collect more evidence were refused by the National Security Court on the ground that they were delaying tactics. 41. The applicant's lawyers complained to the National Security Court about the restrictions and the difficulties they were having in conferring with their client. Their request to be permitted to confer with him during lunch breaks was accepted by the National Security Court at a hearing on 1 June 1999. The lawyers did not appear at the hearing on 3 June 1999. At their request, transcripts of that hearing and copies of the documents placed in the file were given to them and the applicant on 4 June 1999. One of the applicant's counsel thanked the National Security Court for having established a dispassionate atmosphere. 42. On 8 June 1999 the prosecution made their final submissions. They sought the death penalty for the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The applicant's advisers requested a one-month adjournment to enable them to prepare their final submissions. The National Security Court granted them fifteen days, the statutory maximum allowed. 43. On 18 June 1999 Turkey's Grand National Assembly amended Article 143 of the Constitution to exclude both military judges and military prosecutors from national security courts. Similar amendments were made on 22 June 1999 to the law on national security courts. 44. At the hearing on 23 June 1999, the judge who had been appointed to replace the military judge sat as a member of the trial court for the first time. The National Security Court noted that the new judge had already read the file and the transcripts, in accordance with Article 381 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and had followed the proceedings from the outset and attended the hearings. Counsel for the applicant opposed the appointment of the civilian judge owing to his previous involvement in the case. Their application for an order requiring him to stand down was dismissed by the National Security Court. 45. At the same hearing, counsel for the applicant set out the applicant's substantive defence to the charges. 46. On 29 June 1999, after hearing the applicant's final representations, the Ankara National Security Court found the applicant guilty of carrying out acts designed to bring about the secession of part of Turkey's territory and of training and leading a gang of armed terrorists for that purpose. It sentenced him to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. It found that the applicant was the founder and principal leader of the organisation, whose aim was to detach a part of the territory of the Republic of Turkey so as to form a Kurdish State with a political regime based on Marxist-Leninist ideology. The National Security Court found that it had been established that, following decisions taken by the applicant and on his orders and instructions, the PKK had carried out several armed attacks, bomb attacks, acts of sabotage and armed robberies, and that in the course of those acts of violence thousands of civilians, soldiers, police officers, village guards and public servants had been killed. The court did not accept that there were mitigating circumstances allowing the death penalty to be commuted to life imprisonment, having regard, among other things, to the very large number and the seriousness of the acts of violence, the thousands of deaths caused by them, including those of children, women and old people, and the major, pressing threat to the country that those acts posed. 47. The applicant appealed on points of law against the above judgment, which, on account of the severity of the sentence, was in any event automatically subject to review by the Court of Cassation. 48. In a judgment adopted on 22 November 1999 and delivered on 25 November, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 29 June 1999 in every respect. It held that the replacement of the military judge by a civilian judge during the trial did not require the earlier procedural steps to be taken again given that the new judge had followed the proceedings from the beginning and that the law itself required that the proceedings should continue from the stage they had reached at the time of the replacement. The Court of Cassation also pointed out that the Ankara National Security Court was empowered by law to hold its hearings outside the area of its territorial jurisdiction on security grounds, among other reasons. 49. As to the merits, the Court of Cassation had regard to the fact that the applicant was the founder and president of the PKK. It referred to the latter's aim and activities, namely that it sought the foundation of a Kurdish State on a territory that Turkey should be made to cede after an armed struggle and to that end carried out armed attacks and sabotage against the armed forces, industrial premises and tourist facilities in the hope of weakening the authority of the State. The PKK also had a political front (the ERNK) and a military wing (the ARNK), which operated under its control. Its income was derived mainly from “taxes”, “fines”, donations, subscriptions, and the proceeds of armed robberies, gun-running and drug trafficking. According to the Court of Cassation, the applicant led all three of these groups. In his speeches at party conferences, in his radio and television appearances and in the orders he had given to his activists, the applicant had instructed his supporters to resort to violence, indicated combat tactics, imposed penalties on those who did not obey his instructions and incited the civilian population to put words into action. As a result of the acts of violence carried out by the PKK from 1978 until the applicant's arrest (in all, 6,036 armed attacks, 3,071 bomb attacks, 388 armed robberies and 1,046 kidnappings), 4,472 civilians, 3,874 soldiers, 247 police officers and 1,225 village guards had died. 50. The Court of Cassation held that the PKK, founded and led by the applicant, represented a substantial, serious and pressing threat to the country's integrity. It ruled that the acts of which the applicant was accused constituted the offence laid down in Article 125 of the Criminal Code and that it was not necessary, in order for that provision to apply, for the applicant – the founder and president of the PKK and the instigator of the acts of violence committed by that organisation – personally to have used a weapon. 51. In October 2001, Article 38 of the Constitution was amended so that the death penalty could no longer be ordered or implemented other than in time of war or of imminent threat of war, or for acts of terrorism. By Law no. 4771, which was published on 9 August 2002, the Turkish Grand National Assembly resolved, inter alia, to abolish the death penalty in peacetime (that is to say except in time of war or of imminent threat of war) and to make the necessary amendments to the relevant legislation, including the Criminal Code. As a result of the amendments, a prisoner whose death sentence for an act of terrorism has been commuted to life imprisonment must spend the rest of his life in prison. By a judgment of 3 October 2002, the Ankara National Security Court commuted the applicant's death sentence to life imprisonment. It ruled that the offences under Article 125 of the Criminal Code of which the applicant had been accused had been committed in peacetime and constituted terrorist acts. The Nationalist Action Party (MHP – Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi), a political party with representatives in Parliament, applied to the Constitutional Court for an order setting aside certain provisions of Law no. 4771, including the provision abolishing the death penalty in peacetime for persons found guilty of terrorist offences. The Constitutional Court dismissed that application in a judgment of 27 December 2002.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava. 5. In 1993 the applicant’s husband died in a road traffic accident. On 2 March 1995 the person responsible for the accident was convicted of an offence. 6. On 16 October 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava V District Court. She claimed compensation for her maintenance from the person responsible for the accident. 7. On 12 April 1996 the District Court judge instructed the court’s registry to obtain the criminal file relating to the death of the applicant’s husband and to notify the defendant of the action. 8. On 4 July 1996 the postal authority informed the District Court, in reply to its request, that the letter could not be served on the defendant. 9. On 6 February 1997 the District Court asked the applicant’s representative to submit further information. The representative complied with the request on 9 April 1997. 10. On 22 May 1997 the case was adjourned as the applicant’s lawyer failed to appear. 11. On 10 July 1997 the District Court heard the parties. Both parties were requested to submit further documentary evidence. 12. On 2 October 1997 the case was adjourned as the court needed further information from an authority administering the pensions system. 13. On 30 November 1998 and on 13 January 1999 the applicant requested the court to proceed with the case. 14. On 25 February 1999 the case was adjourned as an inquiry had to be made, to the General Prosecutor’s Office, concerning the relevant criminal file. 15. On 20 May 1999 the applicant informed the District Court that she had retired as from 1 April 1999 and that she had appealed against the determination of her pension which included both an old-age and a widow’s pension. The applicant therefore asked the court to adjourn the case as the outcome of the pension proceedings might have a bearing on her claim. 16. On 5 August 1999 the applicant submitted a decision on her pension. Her lawyer did not appear at the hearing. 17. On 18 November 1999 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that he would submit his authority and also specify the applicant’s claims. The District Court asked the lawyer to submit the authority and to specify the claims on 22 January 2000, on 29 March 2000 and on 13 July 2000. On 25 July 2000 the lawyer informed the court that the applicant maintained her action and that he would submit further information shortly. On 13 September 2000 the court asked the lawyer to submit the information required within fifteen days. 18. The lawyer failed to appear at the hearing held on 12 December 2000. 19. On 18 December 2000 the applicant terminated the authority of the lawyer. She appointed a new lawyer to represent her in the proceedings. The lawyer specified the applicant’s claims on 8 January 2001. 20. On 15 February 2001 the case had to be adjourned as the defendant had not appeared. The next hearing was scheduled for 19 April 2001 and the defendant was informed that he could be brought to court by the police. 21. On 12 April 2001 the defendant asked for the case to be adjourned as his lawyer had ceased representing him. For this reason the case was adjourned until 1 June 2001. 22. On 1 June 2001 the case was adjourned as an inquiry was to be made of the Slovak Insurance Company which could possibly become a third party to the proceedings. On 4 July 2001 the Slovak Insurance Company informed the court that it did not wish to join the proceedings as it had no involvement in the case. 23. The next hearing was held, in the absence of the defendant, on 30 November 2001. The court decided to obtain a list of employers of the defendant and of his wife and it adjourned the case until 21 February 2002. 24. On 3 December 2001 the Slovak Insurance Company withdrew its earlier statement and informed the court that it wished to join the proceedings as a third party. 25. On 21 February 2002 the representative of the Slovak Insurance Company submitted documentary evidence. The applicant submitted her comments on 15 April 2002. 26. Hearings before the District Court were held on 23 April 2002 and on 13 May 2002. On the latter date the applicant was requested to submit further information relating to her claim. The applicant replied on 30 May 2002. 27. The District Court adjourned the case on 22 August 2002 and on 17 September 2002. On the latter date the court informed the parties that it had concluded the taking of evidence and that a judgment would be delivered on 23 September 2002. 28. On 23 September 2002 the case was adjourned until 15 October 2002 and the Social Insurance Administration was asked to inform the court about an increase in the applicant’s pension. 29. The case was again adjourned on 15 and on 30 October 2002. On the latter date the court decided to hear a witness who was in charge of dealing with claims relating to road traffic accidents within the Slovak Insurance Company. 30. On 8 November 2002 the applicant’s lawyer ceased representing the applicant due to her retirement. 31. On 10 December 2002 the District Court again adjourned the case with a view to hearing the above witness. On 14 January 2003 the person who had been summoned informed the court that she no longer carried out the function in question. The case was adjourned until 6 March 2003 with a view to hearing the relevant person. That witness was heard on 6 March 2003. 32. On 25 March 2003 the District Court adjourned the case at the request of the applicant’s representative. The applicant was invited to amend her claims within sixty days. 33. Between 22 September 2003 and 30 October 2003 the file was examined by the Constitutional Court to which the applicant had complained about the length of the proceedings. 34. On 12 February 2004 the case was adjourned as the judge was absent. The next hearing was scheduled for 19 February 2004. The representatives of the parties were unable to attend that hearing. 35. Hearings were held on 1 and 7 April 2004. On 20 May 2004 the case was adjourned as the social security institution had failed to submit documents requested by the court. 36. On 7 September 2004 the Bratislava V District Court heard the parties. On 9 September 2004 it delivered a judgment in which it partially granted the applicant’s claim. The judgment was served on the applicant on 2 November 2004. 37. The parties appealed. The proceedings are pending. 38. On 21 January 2003 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court. She claimed 100,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) in just satisfaction. 39. In its finding of 29 October 2003 the Constitutional Court held that the Bratislava V District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delays and to compensate for the costs of the applicant’s representation in the constitutional proceedings. It further decided not to grant any pecuniary satisfaction to the applicant. 40. The decision stated that the case was not complex as the merits of the applicant’s claim had been determined in a different set of proceedings and the only outstanding question was the amount of compensation due to the applicant. 41. The Constitutional Court further found that the applicant or her lawyer had contributed to a considerable extent to the length of the proceedings in that the lawyer had not appeared at hearings on 22 May 1999 and on 12 December 2000. Furthermore, the lawyer undertook on 18 November 1999 to submit his authority and to further specify the applicant’s claims. The relevant documents were only submitted on 8 January 2001, that is after thirteen months. On 8 November 2002 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that she had retired and the authority of a new lawyer representing the applicant had been submitted to the court on 21 March 2003, that is after more than three months. On 25 March 2003 the case was adjourned as the applicant informed the court that her claims might need to be amended. The applicant’s retirement and her appeal against the decision on her pension, the fact that the Slovak Insurance Company had joined the proceedings and changes in lawyers representing the applicant had also slowed down the proceedings. 42. As regards the conduct of the proceedings by the Bratislava V District Court, the Constitutional Court noted that the District Court had taken more than five months to notify the defendant of the action and that it had remained inactive for more than seven months before it asked the applicant’s lawyer, on 6 February 1997, to submit further information. Another period of inactivity lasting more than fifteen months occurred between 2 October 1997 and 25 February 1999. Finally, the Constitutional Court held that the District Court had not proceeded in an appropriate manner as it had concluded the taking of evidence on 17 September 2002 and had envisaged delivering a judgment on 23 September 2002 and that, despite this fact, it had held six other hearings subsequently in which further evidence had been taken. 43. As regards the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction, the Constitutional Court noted that the applicant or her representatives had contributed to the length of the proceedings to approximately the same extent as the District Court. In those circumstances, the finding of a violation of the applicant’s constitutional right and the order that the District Court should proceed with the case without further delay constituted sufficient redress for the applicant.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Modra. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. On 24 August 1993 the Modra municipality sued the applicant before the Bratislava-vidiek District Court. The plaintiff sought to have a contract of lease terminated in respect of a flat which had been earlier allocated to the applicant. 6. Between 7 September 1993 and 7 December 1993 the District Court scheduled five hearings. The applicant did not appear. On two occasions he informed the court that he was ill and on another two occasions he stated that his duties prevented him from attending the court hearings. 7. On 30 September 1994 a different judge was assigned to deal with the case. A hearing was held on 24 November 1994 at which the applicant failed to appear. The District Court therefore imposed a fine on the applicant as well as on a witness who had also failed to appear. 8. At a hearing held on 19 December 1994 the applicant appealed against the decision on a fine and he also challenged the District Court judge dealing with the case. The file was transmitted to the Bratislava Regional Court. On 25 April 1994 the latter quashed the decision on the fine and refused to exclude the District Court judge from dealing with the case. 9. The file was returned to the District Court on 1 June 1995. A hearing was scheduled for 4 March 1996. The court had difficulties in serving the summons on the applicant. On 1 March 1996 the applicant requested that the hearing be adjourned as he was ill. 10. On 4 April 1996 the case was again adjourned due to the absence of the applicant. The court requested a doctor to submit information on the applicant’s health. Both the applicant and the plaintiff’s lawyer informed the District Court that they could not attend a hearing scheduled for 5 August 1996. 11. On 17 September 1996 the District Court decided to jointly deal with the above case and an action of 31 July 1996 seeking termination of the applicant’s contract of lease on a different ground. 12. On 27 September 1996 the applicant requested that a hearing scheduled for 30 September 1996 be adjourned as he was ill. 13. On 14 November 1996 the District Court heard the parties. 14. In the context of a reform of the judiciary the case was transferred to the Bratislava III District Court. The new judge received the file in May 1997. In February 1998 she scheduled a hearing for 6 April 1998. On 16 March 1998 the applicant informed the court that he was ill. The case was adjourned as both the applicant and the plaintiff had failed to appear. 15. On 17 June 1998 the applicant made a counter-claim. 16. On 31 March 1999 the District Court heard the applicant. On 20 April 1999 the applicant requested that a witness should be heard. Subsequently the case was transferred to a different judge. 17. A hearing was held on 12 December 2000. 18. On 22 February 2001 and on 3 April 2001 the case was adjourned due to the applicant’s absence. 19. On 26 April 2001 the Bratislava III District Court dismissed the action. The decision became final on 10 July 2001. 20. By a judicial decision which became final in 1990 the applicant’s former wife was ordered to pay a sum of money to the applicant. 21. On 28 January 1991, on the applicant’s request of 3 December 1990, the Bratislava-vidiek District Court started enforcement proceedings in which the sum due was to be obtained by means of selling the defendant’s car. 22. On 8 March 1991 the defendant appealed. She alleged that she no longer owned the car in question. On 30 August 1991 the appellate court upheld the District Court’s decision on enforcement of the judgment in question. On 22 November 1991 the new owner of the car requested that it should be excluded from the enforcement. In March 1992 the police withheld the documents relating to the car at the court’s request. 23. On 21 October 1992 the court heard the persons concerned. The defendant submitted a sales contract concerning the car in question and informed the court that she had started paying the debt to the applicant. Subsequently the case was transferred to a different judge. On 2 July 1993 the judge requested that the parties should submit further information and documents. The applicant was asked to specify, inter alia, the outstanding sum which the defendant owed him. 24. On 16 July 1993 the applicant informed the court that he did not agree to the instalments which the defendant had proposed to pay to him. On 8 October 1993 the District Court asked the applicant to submit further information including the sum which the defendant had already paid to him. 25. On 22 December 1993 a different judge was assigned to deal with the case. On 5 October 1994 the case was transferred to another judge. 26. Between 12 June 1995 and 29 October 1996 the file was submitted for examination to a judge dealing in a different set of proceedings with the applicant’s claim for compensation against his former wife. On 25 October 1996 the applicant requested that additional evidence should be taken. 27. On 22 November 1996 the case was taken over by the Bratislava III District Court as the Bratislava-vidiek District Court had ceased to exist. 28. On 26 February 1997 the President of the Bratislava III District Court admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that there had been undue delays in the proceedings. The letter stated that the judge dealing with the case had left the judiciary and that the vacant post had not yet been filled. 29. On 27 March 1998 the applicant informed the District Court that the defendant had paid a part of the debt and specified the relevant sum. The court therefore discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of that sum. 30. On 22 February 2000 the Bratislava III District Court found that the claim for enforcement was inadmissible as the defendant had sold the car in question on 4 January 1991. The sum due could not, therefore, be enforced as claimed by the applicant. 31. On 5 June 2000 the Bratislava III District Court formally discontinued the enforcement proceedings which had been brought on 28 January 1991.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant. The applicants were born in Slovakia in 1960 and 1981, respectively, and now live outside Slovakia. They both have Slovakian nationality and the nationality of the country of their permanent residence. 9. In 1985 the Bratislava 4 District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) pronounced the first applicant’s divorce from Mr P., the biological father of the second applicant. The second applicant was entrusted to the care and custody of the first applicant. 10. In 1993 the first applicant married Mr O.A.M. abroad and the applicants set up their permanent residence with him there. 11. On 8 January 1996 Mrs O., the mother of the first applicant, filed an action with the Dunajská Streda District Court claiming that she should be granted the right to educate the second applicant, her granddaughter. At that time the second applicant was fourteen years old and both applicants were in Slovakia on a temporary stay. Mr P. later joined the proceedings on the side of Mrs O. 12. On 14 February 1996 the District Court appointed the Veľký Meder District Office (Okresný úrad) to look after the second applicant’s interests in the proceedings. 13. On 19 February 1996 the first applicant made several submissions to the District Court. She asserted that she and the second applicant were permanently residing outside Slovakia and that, in addition to Slovakian nationality, they also had the nationality of the country of their permanent residence. As they were staying in Slovakia only temporarily, the Slovakian courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the question of the education and care of the second applicant. The first applicant further expressed critical views as to the character of Mrs O. and Mr P. Finally, she lodged an appeal against the decision of 14 February 1996 arguing that officials of the District Office had previously failed to represent the second applicant’s interests adequately and that they could not be expected to do so properly in the future. 14. In April and May 1996 the first applicant sought to disqualify the judge dealing with the case as well as all other judges of the District Court on grounds of bias. The hearing scheduled for 13 May 1996 had therefore to be adjourned and the case‑file was submitted to the Trnava Regional Court (Krajský súd) for a decision on the challenge. 15. On 27 May 1996 the first applicant filed a petition with the Bratislava Regional Court claiming that Mr P. should be deprived of his parental rights over the second applicant. According to the applicants, no decision has ever been taken in respect of this request. 16. On 31 May 1996 the District Office issued an interim measure ordering that the second applicant be temporarily placed in the care of Mrs O. The applicants claim that this measure was illegal and that it has never been served officially on them. The first applicant subsequently returned with the second applicant to their home abroad. 17. On 11 July 1996 the Trnava Regional Court sent the case‑file back to the District Court instructing it to invite the first applicant to indicate which judges of the District Court she was challenging and why. Subsequently the police informed the District Court that the applicants had left Slovakia in June 1996. 18. On 26 August 1996 Mrs O. requested that the District Court issue an interim measure granting her the custody of the second applicant pending the outcome of the proceedings. The applicants have never been made officially aware of this request. 19. The case‑file was again sent to the Trnava Regional Court in September 1996. The Regional Court decided that the District Court’s judges were not biased and, on 18 October 1996, returned the case‑file to the latter. 20. The District Court held a hearing on 28 November 1996. 21. Following their arrival for another temporary stay in Slovakia, the District Court heard the first applicant and Mr O.A.M. on 5 December 1996 and the second applicant on 10 December 1996. 22. On 18 December 1996 the case was adjourned and on 19 December 1996 the District Court dismissed Mrs O.’s request of 26 August 1996 for an interim measure. The District Court did so observing that the applicants were living in Slovakia at that time and that, when questioned on 10 December 1996, the second applicant had expressed the wish to stay with the first applicant. The applicants maintain that at that time they were staying in Slovakia only temporarily. 23. On 14 January 1997 the first applicant filed a petition with the Dunajská Streda District Court in which she again claimed that Mr P. should be deprived of his parental rights over the second applicant. 24. On 16 January 1997 the District Court heard witnesses and on 30 January 1997 it appointed an expert in psychology to draw up a report on the second applicant. The latter filed an appeal against this decision. 25. On 3 February 1997 the District Court appointed the Dunajská Streda District Office to look after the second applicant’s interests in the proceedings. The applicants maintain that they have never been notified of the appointment. 26. On 13 February 1997 the expert informed the District Court that she was not in a position to produce the report because of a heavy workload. 27. The hearing called for 18 February 1997 had to be adjourned as the first applicant and Mr P. failed to appear. The District Court ordered that the District Office look into the upbringing environment of the second applicant and the personal and material situation of the first applicant and Mr P. 28. Mr P. requested that an interim measure be issued to prevent the second applicant from travelling abroad without his consent. On 21 February 1997 the District Court dismissed the request. 29. At a hearing held on 6 March 1997 the District Court heard the parties and a representative of the Dunajská Streda District Office. The first applicant was fined for disturbing the orderly conduct of the hearing by, as the applicants claim, objecting to the truthfulness of the testimony given by Mr P. The case was then adjourned and Mr P. was invited to submit documentary evidence. 30. On 7 March 1997 the first applicant filed an appeal “against all decisions” delivered by the District Court judge dealing with the case. 31. On 10 March 1997 Mr P. appealed against the decision of 21 February 1997. He also claimed that his right to meet the second applicant be determined by the court. 32. On 20 March 1997 the first applicant requested that further documentary evidence be taken. 33. On 27 March 1997 Mr O.A.M. lodged a request for adoption of the second applicant. It was his third request to this effect after he had withdrawn two similar requests made previously on 31 January and 19 February 1996. 34. On 13 May 1997 the District Court submitted the case‑file to the Trnava Regional Court for a decision on the appeals filed by the parties. On 23 June 1996 the Regional Court returned the case‑file to the District Court instructing it to ensure that the first applicant eliminated formal shortcomings in her appeal of 7 March 1997. 35. On 28 July 1997 the Trnava Regional Court dismissed the second applicant’s appeal against the decision of 30 January 1997 concerning the appointment of an expert and quashed the above District Court’s decision of 21 February 1997. 36. On 8 September and 6 October 1997 the District Court inquired of the first applicant’s father about the applicants’ whereabouts. On 15 September and 23 October 1997 he replied that the applicants were currently staying abroad where they had left on 6 May 1997. According to the applicants, they had left Slovakia on 23 April 1997 and were not present there until 6 May 1997. 37. From November 1997 to January 1998 the court attempted several times to establish the address of the applicants in the country of their residence. The police notified the address to the District Court on 29 January 1998. 38. On 24 February 1998, while both applicants were abroad, the District Court issued an interim measure prohibiting them inter alia from leaving Slovakia. On 25 March 1998 Mr O.A.M. appealed against this decision. The first applicant, Mrs O. and Mr P. also appealed. 39. On 14 April 1998 the case‑file was submitted to the President of the Trnava Regional Court who returned the file on 7 May 1998. 40. On 8 July 1998, after having taken several procedural steps, the District Court re‑submitted the case‑file to the Trnava Regional Court for a determination of the appeals against the decision of 24 February 1998. 41. On 26 August 1998 the Trnava Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision to the extent that it prohibited the applicants from travelling abroad and dismissed the request of Mr P. for an interim measure to this effect. The case‑file was returned to the District Court on 4 September 1998. On 11 November 1998 and on 10 March 1999 the District Court judge arranged for service of the Regional Court’s decision on the parties. 42. In the meantime, on 28 October 1998, the first applicant had requested that further evidence be taken. 43. The District Court judge dealing with the case was ill for a considerable period between August 1998 and January 1999 and also between March and May 1999. 44. On 21 April 1999, on the complaint of Mrs O., the Constitutional Court found that her constitutional right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated in the above proceedings. In its decision the Constitutional Court admitted that, to a certain extent, the length of the proceedings was due to the behaviour of the parties. However, the case was not particularly complex and what was at stake in the proceedings called for particular diligence. The Constitutional Court further noted that the District Court had caused undue delays in the proceedings by failing to decide in a timely manner on the request for an interim measure restricting the applicants’ travel abroad, thus bringing about the need for the assistance of foreign authorities. Furthermore, by the time of the Constitutional Court’s decision the District Court judge had not yet prepared the request for assistance that was to be sent to these authorities. 45. The Constitutional Court further observed that the District Court had not proceeded with the case effectively in that it had failed to take evidence, including an expert opinion, required for a decision on the case. Delays in the proceedings had also arisen as a result of the ordinary courts’ failure to decide on the requests for interim measures within the statutory time‑limit. Finally, the Constitutional Court noted that the District Court had failed to take any effective action in the case since 4 September 1998. 46. The applicants were not informed of the above proceedings before the Constitutional Court, did not take part in them and only learned of their outcome once the proceedings were completed. 47. On 3 September 1999 the District Court judge prepared a request for assistance which was to be submitted through the Slovakian Ministry of Justice to the competent authorities in the country of the applicants’ residence. In particular, the District Court sought that information be obtained from the first applicant and Mr O.A.M. as regards the care and education of the second applicant, Mr P.’s parental and visiting rights in respect of the second applicant and the second applicant’s adoption. The District Court also sought an inquiry into the general upbringing environment of the second applicant and the personal, social and material situation of the first applicant and Mr O.A.M. 48. In a letter of 26 November 1999 the Ministry of Justice invited the District Court to complete the request for assistance by submitting further information and copies of the relevant documents. 49. On 21 January 2000 the District Court took three separate decisions to discontinue the proceedings concerning, respectively, the education and care of the second applicant, the deprivation of Mr P. of his parental rights over her and her adoption by Mr O.A.M. The decisions stated that the second applicant had reached the age of majority in 1999 and that, therefore, the said matters could no longer be determined on the merits.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant, Mr Sergey Vasilyevich Chizhov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Zaporizzhia. 7. On 6 October 1997 the applicant was apprehended by police officers B.Y.Y. and L.G.T. On the same day he was brought to the medical sobering-up facility by these officers. In the course of the applicant’s apprehension the police officers inflicted bodily injuries on him, resulting in a short-term health disorder. 8. On 7 October 1997 the applicant was charged with assaulting and attempting to bribe them. 9. On 21 October 1997 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia acquitted the applicant. 10. The applicant complained to the Regional Prosecution Service and the General Prosecution Service seeking to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had unlawfully apprehended and harmed him. 11. On 12 February 1998 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Zaporizzhia City Police Department in the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia, seeking compensation for the moral damage caused by the actions of B.Y.Y. and L.G.T. 12. On 9 March 1998 the Prosecution Service of Zaporizzhia instituted criminal proceedings against the officers. 13. On 29 January 1999 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia sentenced B.Y.Y. and L.G.T. to a 3 year suspended prison sentence following their conviction for abuse of power and inflicting bodily harm on the applicant. It also ordered the Zaporizzhia City Police Department to pay the applicant UAH 3,709.13[1] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 14. On 22 March 1999 the Zaporizzhia Regional Court upheld that decision. 15. On 1 April 1999 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia initiated the execution proceedings for the judgment of 29 January 1999. 16. On 14 April 1999 the writ of execution was lodged with the Leninsky District Bailiffs’ Service in Zaporizzhia. 17. On 20 May 1999 the respondent in the case was changed from the City Police Department of Zaporizzhia to the Regional Police Department of Zaporizzhia, because the latter was responsible for managing the medical sobering-up facilities. 18. On 27 July 1999 the writ of execution was transferred to the Ordzhonikidze Bailiffs’ Service for further enforcement. 19. In August 1999 the State Treasury Department confirmed the lack of funds of the Regional Police Department. 20. On 16 August 1999 the applicant lodged a motion to attach the property of the Zaporizzhia Regional Police Department. 21. On 14 September 1999 the Ordzhonikidze District Execution Service of Zaporizzhia informed the applicant that the attachment of the property of a State institution was prohibited by law. 22. On 3 November 1999 the Ordzhonikidze District Execution Service informed the applicant of the Zaporizzhia Regional Police Department’s lack of funds. It also stated that the latter owned no property and therefore attachment was not possible. 23. During 1999-2000, the applicant repeatedly lodged a number of motions with the Prosecution Service of Zaporizzia, the General Prosecution Service, the State Security Service, the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the Human Rights Ombudsman, seeking to institute criminal proceedings against various officials of the Zaporizzhia Regional Police Department, the execution service officials, Judge D.L.A of the Leninsky District Court, and a private person, D.S.S., who had allegedly assaulted the applicant. 24. On 5 April 2000 the Ordzhonikidze District Bailiffs’ Service terminated the proceedings in the applicant’s case due to the lack of funds of the Zaporizzhia Regional Police Department. The Government mentioned that the applicant retained a right to reintroduce the writ of execution with the Bailiffs’ Service for up to three years. 25. On 17 November 2000 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Ukraine refused to initiate supervisory review proceedings in the applicant’s case. It also remitted the applicant’s claims concerning the non-execution of the judicial decision to the Ministry of Justice. 26. On 9 June 2003 the Ordzhonikidze District Bailiffs’ Service issued resolution no. 1131/9 concerning the institution of the enforcement proceedings for the judgment of 29 January 1999. It also proposed to the debtor that it enforce the judgment given in the applicant’s favour voluntarily. On the same date the resolution instituting the criminal proceedings was sent to the Zaporizzhia Regional Police Department and to the applicant. 27. On 20 June 2003 the bailiff requested the State Treasury to transfer the funds awarded to the applicant by the judgment of 29 January 1999 to his account. 28. On 7 August 2003 the applicant requested that the funds be transferred to his account. 29. On 14 August 2003 the judgment of 29 January 1999 was enforced and the applicant received UAH 3,709.13[2]. 30. On 20 November 2003 the Ordzhonikidze Bailiffs’ Service terminated the execution proceedings in the case in view of the fact that the judgment of 29 January 1999 had been enforced in full.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Košice. 5. On 8 May 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Poprad District Court. She sued a private company which had constructed a building on her plot of land. The applicant claimed that legal relations between her and the defendant be settled and that easement be imposed in that context. 6. On 30 May 1995 the defendant submitted observations on the applicant’s claim. He informed the court that a similar issue was being determined in a different set of proceedings pending before the appellate court. 7. In July 1995 the parties submitted further information at the court’s request. Subsequently the judge dealing with the case sought to obtain the file concerning the other set of proceedings allegedly relating to the same issue. That file was returned from the appellate court on 31 May 1996. On 6 June 1996 the District Court asked the applicant to submit further information. The applicant replied on 15 July 1996. On 14 August 1996 the District Court asked the applicant to pay the court fee. 8. At a hearing held on 13 September 1996 the applicant modified her claim. The defendant submitted observations in reply on 3 October 1996. 9. On 9 March 1998 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 3 April 1998. On the latter date as well as on 4 May 1998 the case was adjourned as the parties had stated that they would attempt to reach a settlement. 10. On 5 June 1998 the District Court decided to obtain further information concerning the value of the land in question. That information was submitted to it on 6 July 1998. 11. On 28 July 1998 the District Court invited the applicant to pay an advance on the expert’s costs. The applicant paid the sum on 7 August 1998. 12. On 11 March 1999 the court appointed an expert and asked him to submit an opinion within forty days. The file was submitted to the expert on 16 March 1999. Subsequently the District Court repeatedly urged the expert to submit the opinion. On 24 March 2000 the expert informed the court that the advance payment of his costs should be increased. On 8 August 2000 the applicant objected to the expert’s request. On 9 November 2000 the District Court requested that the expert should return the file to it. 13. The applicant filed several complaints about the length of the proceedings. On 10 November 2000 the President of the Poprad District Court dismissed the complaints. The letter stated that the expert opinion had not been submitted due to illness of the expert and that the judge would consider the possibility of appointing a different expert. Reference was further made to the heavy workload of the judges. 14. On 11 January 2001 the District Court appointed a different expert with a view to obtaining an opinion. On 25 January 2001 the second expert informed the court that he was not in a position to elaborate an opinion due to his heavy workload. 15. On 13 March 2001 the District Court appointed a third expert. On 29 March 2001 the latter asked for his appointment to be revoked as he was ill. 16. On 14 March 2001 the applicant informed the court that a settlement of the case was envisaged. 17. On 18 June 2001 the applicant informed the District Court that a settlement had been reached between the parties and that she therefore wished to withdraw her action. On this ground the District Court discontinued the proceedings by a decision of 20 June 2001.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1950 and lived in Bratislava. She committed suicide on 28 September 2004. On 25 October 2004 the applicant’s heirs, Ms V. Čillíková (the sister of the applicant) and Mr J. Bôbik (the applicant’s brother) informed the Court of their wish to pursue the application in the applicant’s stead. 6. By a decision which became final on 28 January 1998 the applicant’s and her former husband’s joint tenancy in respect of a flat was terminated. The Bratislava Regional Court decided that the applicant’s former husband should remain the sole tenant of the flat and ordered the applicant to move out of it within fifteen days after she has been provided with alternative accommodation. In the reasons for the judgment the Regional Court explicitly held that the applicant was entitled to use the flat until her former husband found appropriate accommodation for her. However, her former husband did not allow the applicant to enter the flat. She was therefore obliged to temporarily stay at different places including her sister’s flat. 7. On 1 March 2000 the applicant requested the Bratislava IV District Court to enforce the above judgment. 8. On 18 January 2002 the President of the Bratislava Regional Court admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that the case had not been proceeded with effectively between 1 March 2000 and 10 January 2002. 9. On 9 December 2002, on 16 and 31 January 2003, on 31 March 2003 and on 28 April 2003 the Bratislava IV District Court adjourned the case as the applicant’s former husband failed to appear. The judge had unsuccessfully attempted to have the defendant brought by the police to the hearings held between January and April 2003. According to the applicant, those attempts were unsuccessful also due to the fact that the court had incorrectly indicated the address of the defendant’s employer to the police. 10. A hearing was held on 26 May 2003. Both parties attended. The defendant challenged the District Court judge. 11. On 6 October 2003 the Bratislava Regional Court decided on the request for exclusion of the District Court judge. The decision was served on the defendant on 28 November 2003. 12. A hearing scheduled for 4 March 2004 was adjourned as the District Court judge was ill. 13. On 22 April 2004 the applicant filed an enforcement request under a different provision of the Code of Civil Procedure under which a court can, where possible, authorise the person seeking the enforcement of a judicial decision to have a service carried out by a third person at the expense of the debtor. She also withdrew the authority of her lawyer. 14. On 22 July 2004 the Bratislava IV District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for enforcement of 1 March 2004. The decision stated that the judgment to be enforced did not explicitly order the defendant to put accommodation at the applicant’s disposal within a specific time-limit. On 24 September 2004 the applicant appealed. In January 2005 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that the proceedings were still pending before the Bratislava Regional Court. 15. On 8 April 2002 the applicant filed a complaint about delays in the proceedings pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution. She also claimed 200,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) as just satisfaction. 16. On 10 July 2002 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to a hearing without undue delay guaranteed by Article 48(2) of the Constitution and by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been violated. The Constitutional Court held that the case was not complex and that no delays could be imputed to the applicant’s conduct. It noted that the only action taken by the Bratislava IV District Court had been a request that the applicant pay the court fee dated 16 November 2001. 17. The Constitutional Court granted the applicant SKK 18,000[1] as just satisfaction. The decision stated that the amount was determined on an equitable basis with regard to the particular circumstances of the case according to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 41 of the Convention. Its purpose was to attenuate the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. The sum was to be paid by the Bratislava IV District Court within two months after the Constitutional Court’s decision became final. In the decision the Constitutional Court also ordered the Bratislava IV District Court to proceed with the applicant’s case without further delay. The decision became final on 12 August 2002. 18. On 28 October 2002 the applicant filed a new complaint with the Constitutional Court. She alleged a violation of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time in that the Bratislava IV District Court had failed to proceed with the case without delay. She further alleged a violation of her right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and of her property rights in that the District Court had not paid the sum to her as ordered by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 10 July 2002. 19. On 29 January 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s second complaint. It found that the applicant had, in separate proceedings, requested the enforcement of the sum granted to her and that it therefore could not examine her complaints in that respect. The Constitutional Court further held that, following the final effect of its first finding on 12 August 2002, there had been a delay of more than two months in the enforcement proceedings brought in 2000. However, the overall length of the period under consideration, that is after the delivery of the first finding of the Constitutional Court, was not excessive in the particular circumstances of the case. 20. As the sum granted to her by the Constitutional Court’s finding of 10 July 2002 was not paid to her, the applicant requested that that sum be enforced on 19 November 2002. 21. On 17 December 2002 the District Court paid the sum indicated in the Constitutional Court’s decision to the applicant. 22. On 4 June 2003 and on 17 July 2003 the applicant complained to the police that her former husband had denied her access to the flat in which she was entitled to live. The police found that the conduct of the applicant’s former husband could be qualified as a minor offence and transferred the case to the Bratislava IV District Office. The applicant unsuccessfully complained about the way in which the police had dealt with the case to public prosecutors at two levels. 23. On 24 September 2003 the applicant asked the Bratislava IV District Office to order her former husband not to disturb her in her right to use the flat in question. On 29 December 2003 the Bratislava IV District Office set the case aside. The decision stated that the administrative authority could not deal with it as (i) enforcement proceedings on the point at issue were pending before the District Court and (ii) the Bratislava IV police department were dealing with criminal complaints which the applicant and her former husband had filed against each other and on which no final decision had yet been taken. 24. On 24 October 2003 the applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary damage from the Ministry of Justice before the Bratislava IV District Court. She relied on the State Liability Act of 1969 and on the Constitutional Court’s finding of 10 July 2002 and claimed a sum corresponding to the rent for the flat in which she had the right to live and which she could not use. After the applicant’s death her siblings expressed the wish to join the proceedings as plaintiffs in her stead. The proceedings are pending.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant is a limited liability company with its registered office in Prague. 5. On 5 September 1997 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Prague Regional Commercial Court (krajský obchodní soud) against the National Property Fund (Fond národního majetku) for unjust enrichment in the amount of 5,288,148 CZK (176,085 EUR). The court received the action on 18 September 1997. 6. On 22 February 2000 the applicant requested the Regional Commercial Court to schedule a hearing. 7. On 20 March 2000 the applicant received the Regional Commercial Court’s request of 23 February 2000 to pay the court fees. A confirmation of their payment was delivered to the court on 13 April 2000. 8. On 28 April 2000 the Regional Commercial Court issued a payment order (platební rozkaz) in favour of the applicant. On 5 June 2000 it was delivered to the parties in the proceedings. 9. On 11 July 2000 the Regional Commercial Court invited the applicant to submit its observations on the defendant’s appeal, which the court had received on 15 June 2000. 10. Upon its receipt of the court’s invitation of 27 July 2000, the applicant sent its observations on 15 September 2000. They were delivered to the court on 18 September 2000. 11. Due to the reorganization of the Czech judicial system, the case was transferred to the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) by 1 January 2001. 12. On 10 April 2001 the defendant’s lawyer informed the Municipal Court about his representation of the defendant. 13. On 29 October 2001 the Municipal Court delivered the applicant’s observations and the court’s request of 23 October 2001 to supplement the defendant’s appeal to the defendant’s lawyer. 14. After it had received the supplement to the defendant’s appeal on 7 November 2001, on 28 November 2001 the Municipal Court fixed a hearing for 31 January 2002, at which the applicant’s lawyer presented new evidence and proposed an extrajudicial settlement of the dispute. The defendant’s lawyer requested the Municipal Court to adjourn the hearing for and give him a month to study the evidence and the applicant’s proposal. 15. After having held hearings of 26 September and 5 December 2002, the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s action on 16 December 2002. On 20 February 2003 the judgment was delivered to the applicant’s lawyer. 16. Upon the applicant’s appeal of 21 February 2003, supplemented on 17 April 2003, the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud) held a hearing on 6 April 2004 and partly granted the applicant’s action on 20 April 2004. On 28 May 2004 the judgment entered into force.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Istanbul. He is the author of a book titled “Extraordinary War, Terror and Contra Guerrilla” (“Özel Savaş Terör ve Kontragerilla”). 5. On 6 January 1993 Orhan Sefa Kilercioğlu, the then Minister of State brought a civil action for compensation against the applicant, before the Ankara First Instance Court in Civil Matters. He claimed that the alleged defamatory remarks in the applicant’s book constituted an attack on his reputation and requested that the court award him compensation of 100,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) for non-pecuniary damage. 6. During the proceedings the court evaluated the following passages: “In an interview I gave in Antalya I commented on the “1 May 1977” massacre and the possibility of a coup d’état during that period. It seems that a magazine carried out research following these assertions and reached some interesting conclusions. According to the magazine, the Minister of State, Orhan Kilercioğlu, had established contacts with the Special War Department (Özel Harp Dairesi). He had been involved in the coup that was co-ordinated by General Namık Kemal Ersun together with Generals Recai Engin, Musa Öğün and Rüştü Naipoğlu. The names of these generals had appeared in several foreign and domestic newspapers where they were presented as the authors of the massacre carried out on 1st of May and of other provocative acts. The magazine interviewed Mr Orhan Kilercioğlu. He said the following: – Some newspapers and magazines have been presenting you as the author or even the perpetrator of the “1st of May” massacre until last year. You have never commented on those allegations for almost 12 years. Kilercioğlu: I never thought of replying. The State has everything. It has mechanisms. [Those allegations] have never bothered me. – Comments regarding your involvement in the “1st of May” massacre were made with reference to an American newspaper. A periodical commented on your involvement in the contra guerrilla [activities]. Kilercioğlu: The State has laws, it has courts. Under such conditions, would they have kept silent until now? Everything has been done. – Did you exercise your right to reply? Kilercioğlu: I do not remember. As one can easily see, Mr Kilercioğlu is disregarding the questions and making a big fuss. By not having exercised his right to reply and not having lodged a complaint with the judicial organs, he must have been aware of the fact that he was implicitly acknowledging these allegations against him. Especially, someone like him: an ex-general and a Minister of State. Mr Kilercioğlu answered another question: “I am the purest and the most innocent person that you could ever meet in life,” he says. If a person is identifying himself like this, let’s just leave the verdict to a doctor! In an interview he gave after his retirement in 1989 he said: “As you know, there are groups in the army. They fight among themselves. We fought and lost.” He is probably admitting to having belonged to the junta by identifying himself as a member of the “group”. One can conclude from his statement that he had been a member of the junta. One can also presume that the junta of General Namık Kemal Ersun had had plans to overthrow Demirel’s government. Then the question arises: How could Demirel appoint a minister who was involved in a junta against him? Maybe Mr Kilercioğlu is one of Mr Demirel’s sins? ... Let’s go back to Kilercioğlu. Although he admitted to having belonged to a “group of fighters”, a number of newspapers, some business circles and TRT (Turkish Radio and Television) stood as protectors of Kilercioğlu after his retirement. Undoubtedly, this was not due to his “pure” personality. It was more due to his presence in the fascist wing, which dedicated itself to protecting the interests of business circles. After his retirement he was ready to serve those business circles. I wonder: how will he be able to fight against corruption and illegal trade after having flown from the Yaşar Holding to the ministerial chair?” 7. The applicant argued before the court that the passages concerning Mr Kilercioğlu were quoted from an interview published by a magazine. He drew the court’s attention to the fact that Mr Kilercioğlu had never exercised his right of reply; nor had he contested the publication of his statements in that magazine. The applicant claimed that he was exercising his right to freedom of expression in making those remarks. 8. On 2 February 1994 the first instance court rejected Mr Kilercioğlu’s claims. It decided that the passages in question were merely the applicant’s criticisms of Mr Kilercioğlu’s statements, in the light of his political beliefs, and they did not constitute an attack on the plaintiff’s reputation. 9. Mr Kilercioğlu appealed. On 1 December 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first instance court. It considered that the following extracts from the book went beyond the limits of acceptable criticism. It held that they were based on hearsay alone and they therefore amounted to an attack on the reputation of the plaintiff: “... he is admitting to having belonged to the junta...”, “...his presence in the fascist wing, which dedicated itself to protecting the interests of business circles.”, “After his retirement he was ready to serve those business circles. I wonder: how will he be able to fight against corruption and illegal trade after having flown from the Yaşar Holding to the ministerial chair? ... ” 10. The Court of Cassation concluded that the plaintiff should be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage under Article 49 of the Code of Obligations. 11. On 5 June 1995 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s request for rectification of the judgment. 12. On 14 September 1995, after having considered the Court of Cassation’s decision, the Ankara First Instance Court in Civil Matters decided to award Mr Kilercioğlu the sum of TRL 100,000,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, together with interest rate of 30% per annum running from 4 December 1992. 13. The applicant appealed. On 11 April 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of 14 September 1995 on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded was disproportionate to the damage suffered by the plaintiff. 14. On 19 July 1996 the Ankara First Instance Court in Civil Matters considered that its decision of 14 September 1995 was in accordance with the law and that the amount of compensation awarded was proportionate to the damage suffered by the plaintiff. It decided not to follow the decision of the Court of Cassation. 15. Mr Kilercioğlu lodged an appeal with the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, which quashed the decision of the Ankara First Instance Court in Civil Matters on 26 March 1997. 16. On 8 October 1997 the Ankara First Instance Court in Civil Matters awarded Mr Kilercioğlu compensation in the amount of TRL 60,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage, together with interest rate of 30% per annum running from 4 December 1992. Upon Mr Kilercioğlu’s request, the court also ordered the publication of its decision in a newspaper. 17. The applicant appealed. On 19 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld in part the judgment dated 8 October 1997. It considered that the amount of compensation awarded to the plaintiff was in accordance with law. However, the plaintiff’s request to the first instance court asking for publication of its decision was not raised before the Court of Cassation. It therefore quashed that part of the decision. 18. On 30 September 1998 the Ankara First Instance Court in Civil Matters followed the Court of Cassation’s decision of 19 March 1998. The applicant was notified of this decision on 23 January 1999. 19. On 19 February 1999 the applicant paid TRL 231,500,000 to the plaintiff as compensation.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicants were born in 1926, 1927, 1930, 1937 and 1939 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Vaduz, the third applicant lives in Schaan and the fourth and fifth applicants live in Triesen. 9. The applicants, who are siblings, were joint owners (one-fifth each) of two adjacent plots of land in Schellenberg, registered under files nos. 55/IV and 67/IV of the Schellenberg land register, which they inherited in 1983. 10. On 29 September 1972, when the property at issue still belonged to the applicants' father, the Schellenberg municipality issued a provisional area zoning plan (Zonenplanfestsetzungsbeschluss) designating the two parcels of land as non-building land. Before that, the property was not covered by any area zoning plan. 11. On 14 May 1980 the Schellenberg Municipal Council (Gemeinderat) dismissed an appeal by the applicants' father. 12. On 24 November 1981 the area zoning plan (Zonenplan) was approved by the Liechtenstein Government. 13. The applicants' request for a change of the designation of their land into building land (Bauland), dated 24 August 1994, was to no avail. 14. On 15 July 1997 the applicants claimed compensation of 4.9 million Swiss Francs (CHF) for damage allegedly incurred due to the designation of their land as non-building land. They claimed that that designation amounted to de facto expropriation. 15. On 2 June 1998 the Liechtenstein Government, sitting in camera, dismissed their claim. They found that the impugned designation of the applicants' property, not previously subject to any area zoning plan, as non-building land did not amount to a de facto expropriation conferring a right to compensation. In particular, the applicants' land had not been opened up for building, nor had there been any plans of the municipality to prepare it for development. 16. On 18 June 1998 the applicants filed an appeal against the above Government decision with the Liechtenstein Administrative Court (Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz). They claimed, inter alia, that the elements on which the Government had based their decision had not been established in adversarial proceedings. In particular, the applicants alleged that they had not been given an opportunity to present their views on the question of whether or not their land had been opened up for development purposes, which, in fact, had been the case. Thus, they requested that the parties be heard on the matter and that an inspection of the property be carried out. Further, they requested that the Administrative Court obtain the minutes of the Schellenberg Municipal Council's meeting of 5 July 1995, which showed that the municipality had considered the possibility of including their property in a building area. 17. On 21 October 1998 the Schellenberg municipality, as respondent, filed submissions (Gegenschrift) requesting the Administrative Court to dismiss the appeal. They referred to the reasons underlying the designation of the applicants' property as non-building land and claimed that the applicants' predecessor had not appealed against the area zoning plan. Further, the municipality contested the applicants' assertion that the said property had been opened up. Contrary to the applicants' assertions, the adjacent parcels had equally been designated as non-building land. The municipality also submitted the minutes referred to by the applicants. The municipality's comments were not served on the applicants. 18. On 25 June 1999 the Administrative Court, sitting in camera, dismissed the applicants' appeal. The Court was presided over by judge G.W. 19. In its decision, the Administrative Court described the conduct of the proceedings so far, including a detailed summary of the comments submitted by the Schellenberg municipality, noting that the conditions for compensation were not met, inter alia because the applicants' property had not been opened up. The neighbouring parcels were also undeveloped. When the zoning plan was issued, the applicants could not legitimately expect a designation of their property as building land. Pointing out that the applicants had filed very detailed written submissions, the Administrative Court found that they had been given sufficient opportunity to submit their arguments and evidence. 20. On 7 July 1999 the applicants filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Staatsgerichtshof) under Section 23 of the Constitutional Court Act (Staatsgerichtshofsgesetz), claiming that the principle of equality of arms had been infringed in that the Administrative Court had based its decision on new submissions made by the Schellenberg municipality (concerning the issue of whether the applicants' predecessors had appealed against the zoning plan and concerning the question of whether the applicants' property had been opened up), to which they had had no opportunity to reply. They also complained about procedural defects, in particular that the Administrative Court had failed to hear them and to carry out an inspection of the property at issue. In sum they asserted that the Administrative Court's decision violated their right to property. 21. On 10 February 2000 the Constitutional Court informed the applicants of the composition of the panel of five judges that would examine their case in private on 29 February 2000. 22. Subsequently, on 21 February 2000, the applicants filed a challenge for bias against H.H., one of the panel judges, claiming that he was to be disqualified on account of his partnership in a law firm (Kanzleigemeinschaft) with G.W., i.e. with the presiding judge of the proceedings before the Administrative Court. 23. On 29 February 2000 the Constitutional Court, sitting in camera, dismissed the applicants' complaint, confirming that the designation of their property as non-building land did not amount to a de facto expropriation requiring compensation. 24. Bearing in mind that the principle of equality of arms was a basic element of the fairness of proceedings, it agreed in principle with the applicants' argument that they should have been afforded an opportunity to be informed of and to comment upon the Schellenberg municipality's observations in reply to their appeal. In that regard, the Court observed that the submissions in issue had contained new information, in particular, the alleged fact that the applicants' predecessor had never filed an objection against the area zoning plan. If established, that fact would have had a negative effect on the applicants' legal position. However, the Constitutional Court noted that this submission had not played any role in the Administrative Court's decision. Thus, no prejudice had resulted from this procedural deficiency. Considering these special circumstances as well as the fact that the proceedings as a whole had been adversarial, the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicants' procedural rights had not been impaired. 25. As far as the applicants' allegations of bias were concerned, the Constitutional Court, referring to an academic commentary on Liechtenstein administrative law, recalled that a country of the size of Liechtenstein had limited human resources in the public sector. It stressed that, in such circumstances, questions of replacement should be dealt with cautiously if one did not wish to jeopardise the proper functioning of the Liechtenstein authorities. The court pointed out that, by virtue of section 6 of the Constitutional Court Act, a judge of the Constitutional Court, being at the same time a judge at another Liechtenstein court had to be disqualified from proceedings where a complaint concerned a decision issued by that court. However, the Constitutional Court found that the same did not apply in cases where a judge was merely acquainted with a judge who had taken part in the impugned decision. Moreover, it noted that, in a State based on the rule of law, the quashing of a decision by the Constitutional Court was nothing unusual and did not cast doubt on the professional skills of the judges involved in that decision. In those circumstances, the Court found that the applicants' fears of bias could not be considered to be objectively justified. 26. The Constitutional Court's decision was served on the applicants on 14 April 2000.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 10. At the time of the events at issue, the applicants resided in Çalpınar, a village attached to the district of Midyat in the Mardin province of south-east Turkey. 11. On 20 April 1992, at around 7 a.m., a group of villagers set out from the village of Çalpınar for the district of Midyat, by a minibus and a truck. On the way to Midyat, an armed group of people stopped the villagers one kilometre away from the village of Çalpınar. They forced the villagers to get out of the vehicles and ordered them to line up near the road. They fired at the villagers and fled. According to the applicants, the armed group consisted of village guards. 12. The gendarmes drew a sketch map of the crime scene and drafted an incident report addressed to the Midyat public prosecutor. It was stated in the report that a group of terrorists wearing military uniforms stopped a minibus and a truck near the hamlet of Kuyubaşı attached to the village of Çalpınar. They killed six villagers, namely Hasan Akay, İsmet Acar, Mehmet Ağırman, Abdülkadir Akan, Süleyman Acar and Mehmet Akan. Nine villagers, namely Reşit Acar, Mehmet Emin Acar, Sabri Acar, Ahmet Acar, İbrahim Akan, Yusuf Acar, Erdal Acar, Salih Acar, Süleyman Acar and Semra Akan, were wounded. Furthermore, the gendarmes found 66 empty cartridges of 7.62 mm which had been discharged from Kalashnikov rifles. The report concluded that the incident was an ideologically motivated killing by members of the PKK. 13. On the same day the Midyat Public Prosecutor and a forensic doctor conducted an autopsy at the scene of the incident. They concluded that the persons killed in the incident had died of bullet wounds. The autopsy report recorded the following injuries: İsmet Acar: One bullet entry on the right ear, one bullet exit on the upper part of the head, one bullet entry on the right armpit, one bullet exit on the right shoulder, one bullet wound on the abdomen, one bullet entry on the upper abdomen, one bullet exit on the waist, one bullet entry on the right upper abdomen, one bullet exit on the right upper hip, one bullet entry on the right thigh and one bullet exit on the front hip. Hasan Akay: One bullet entry on the forehead, one bullet exit on the right part of the head, one bullet entry between the 10th and 11th ribs, one bullet exit on the right front ribs, one bullet entry on the inner right elbow, one bullet exit on the outer right elbow, one bullet entry on the left upper 12th rib, one bullet exit on the left part of the chest, one bullet wound on the left shoulder, one bullet entry on the inner left leg and one bullet exit on the outer left leg. Mehmet Ağırman: One bullet entry on the left shoulder blade, one bullet exit on the right shoulder blade, one bullet entry on the inner right elbow, one bullet exit on the outer left elbow and one bullet wound on the right calf. Süleyman Acar: One bullet wound on the left temple, one bullet entry on the left shoulder, one bullet exit on the left shoulder blade, one bullet entry on the right part of the right wrist, one bullet exit on the left part of the right wrist and one bullet entry on the left calf. Mehmet Akan: One bullet entry on the left hip, one bullet exit on the upper left hip, one bullet entry on the waist, one bullet exit on the scrotum, one bullet entry between the 9th and 10th ribs, one bullet exit on the upper right hip and one bullet exit between the 9th and 10th ribs. Abdülkadir Akan: One bullet entry on the forehead, one bullet exit on the left temple, one bullet entry between the 6th and 7th ribs, one bullet exit between the 7th and 8th ribs, one bullet entry on the right hip, one bullet exit on the abdomen, one bullet entry on the right upper hip, one bullet exit on the pubis, one bullet entry on the 12th rib and one bullet exit on the chest. The estimated time of death was given in the autopsy report as 5 or 6 hours before the autopsy had been carried out. The doctor concluded that it was unnecessary to conduct further autopsies of the bodies. 14. On the same day the witnesses Süleyman Acar[1], Yusuf Acar and Salih Acar were questioned by the police officer Hüseyin Coşar. Moreover the Midyat Public Prosecutor took the statements of the applicants Mehmet Akay, Hüseyin Akan and five other witnesses. Mehmet Akay stated as follows: “This morning at around 7 a.m. we set out for Midyat. There were five or six of us in Hasan Akay’s truck. When we were one kilometre away from the village, a group of fifteen men appeared from both the left and the right side of the road. They came out from a cave near the road. They stopped us. They were wearing military uniforms. We thought that they were soldiers. There was a minibus that was following us. They also stopped the minibus. They told us to get out of the vehicles and hold our arms up. We did as we were told. Then, they took İsmet [Acar], Hasan [Akay], Hacı Mehmet [Akan], Mehmet Emin Acar, Ahmet Acar and Mehmet Ağırman to the other side of the road and started shooting at them with Kalashnikov rifles. The others ran away. I ran away as well. They also shot at us. Some of us died and some of us were wounded. Then, they ran rapidly towards the village of Kutlubey. Those people were village guards from the village of Kutlubey. Their faces were half covered but I identified Cengiz and Ethem. I do not know their surnames. I could recognise their voices because I knew them before. They are from the neighbouring village.” Süleyman Acar stated as follows: “... When we were passing by the Mythike cave, ten or twenty people came out of it. They were armed and were speaking in Kurdish. They told us to line up. We did as we were told. They also stopped the minibus that was following us. I knew two people among the group. One of them is called Ethem and the other is called Cengiz. They opened fire at us. I was wounded. They took me to Midyat State Hospital.” Salih Acar stated as follows: “... They had already taken the people out from the truck. They told us to get out of the minibus. They took five of us and killed them. When we started to run, they opened fire on us. I was wounded. It was Ethem and Cengiz who made us line up.” 15. On 21 April 1992 Sabri Acar and Mehmet Emin Acar, who had been wounded in the incident, died in Mardin State Hospital. A bullet was removed from the decased Sabri Acar’s body. Moreover, on the same day the applicant Reşit Acar was operated on and a bullet was removed from his body. 16. On 13 May 1992 the applicant İbrahim Akan gave the following statement to the Midyat Public Prosecutor: “... A group of twenty five or thirty armed people stopped our truck. They also stopped the minibus that was following us. I recognised İsmail (his mother is called Güle), Cengiz and Ethem. I do not know their surnames. I know them very well because they are our neighbours. İsmail and Ethem had not covered their faces. Sorry, I made a mistake. It was Cengiz’s face which was uncovered. İsmail and Ethem had covered their mouths but not their eyes. They were wearing conical hats like soldiers. They were also wearing commando uniforms. They were holding Kalashnikov rifles. Cengiz was also holding a gun. They shouted at us in Turkish and ordered us to get out of the vehicles one by one. When we gathered near the vehicles they told us in Kurdish to line up. I told them that they could search us and check our identity cards. Then I asked them to let us go. I told them that we had a long way to travel. When they heard this they opened fire. We ran away. Seven people died. I was wounded in the back. These people ran away towards the village of Kutlubey. I know them very well. I can identify them. Kutlubey is not far away from our village. There is no vendetta between the villages. The only reason for this incident could be that they have village guards but we do not. According to the rumours, the members of the organisation [PKK] had killed a village guard from the village of Kutlubey. The Kutlubey villagers had thought that it was us who had killed him. We celebrated Nevruz but they did not. For that reason we were their enemies.” 17. On 3 June 1992 Salih Acar and Ahmet Acar also gave statements to the Midyat Public Prosecutor. They reiterated that the village guards Ethem and Cengiz from the village of Kutlubey were among the group of people who had attacked them. Salih Acar further stated that although the attackers had covered their faces he had been able to identify Cengiz and Ethem. 18. In a ballistic report by the Diyarbakır Provincial Criminal Police Laboratory, dated 23 June 1992, it was recorded that sixty-six cartridges of 7.62 x 39mm calibre had been submitted for examination. In carrying out the ballistic examination, the laboratory fired the weapons belonging to the village guards from Kutlubey and compared the empty cartridges with those found at the site of the incident. The report found that twelve of the examined cartridges had been fired from Tacettin Sakan’s weapon, twelve from Nevaf Aydın’s weapon, nine from Şehmuz Seyda’s weapon, six from Halit Aktan’s weapon, six from Rahmi Kaçmaz’s weapon, six from Mihdi Özbay’s weapon, five from Ethem Seyhan’s weapon, four from Tevfik Akbay’s weapon, two from Abbas Taş’s weapon and finally one from Mehmet Seyhan’s weapon. The report further stated that three cartridges bore no resemblance to the cartridges examined by the laboratory. Following the examination the weapons were deposited in safe storage at the Nusaybin Gendermarie Command. 19. On 30 June 1992 the judge at the Midyat Assize Court took statements from the ten village guards, whose names were mentioned in the ballistic report, and ordered their detention on remand. 20. On 8 July 1992 the Midyat public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Midyat Assize Court against the twenty-seven village guards of Kutlubey. He accused them of the murder and attempted murder of more than one person. 21. On 20 July 1992 the Midyat Assize Court ordered that the village guards Cengiz Kaçmaz and İsmail Taş be detained on remand. After three days İsmail Taş was released pending trial. 22. On 4 August 1992, at the first hearing, the Midyat Assize Court requested the ballistic examination of the bullet which had been removed from Hasan Akay’s corpse by the Midyat Public Prosecutor, during the autopsy. 23. On 10 August 1992, the Midyat public prosecutor requested the Diyarbakır Provincial Criminal Police Laboratory to determine whether or not the bullet removed from Sabri Acar’s body had been fired from the weapons belonging to the village guards. On 25 August 1992 the laboratory informed the public prosecutor that it was not possible to comply with these requests as they were only in possession of the empty cartridges found at the scene of the incident and not the weapons themselves. 24. On 1 September 1992 the court requested the Nusaybin Gendarmerie Command to hand over the accused village guards’ weapons so that a ballistic examination of the bullets removed from the corpses of deceased Sabri Acar and Hasan Akay could be carried out. Moreover it sent a notice to the Midyat Public Prosecutor to ascertain the address of the victim Erdal Acar, who possibly still had a bullet in his body, and to have him medically examined. 25. At a hearing on 29 September 1992 Salih Acar, Yusuf Acar and the applicant İbrahim Akan appeared before the Midyat Assize Court. Salih Acar and Yusuf Acar identified the village guards Ethem Seyhan and Cengiz Kaçmaz, who were present in the courtroom, as the perpetrators of the incident. İbrahim Akan identified Ethem Seyhan, Cengiz Kaçmaz as well as Tacettin Sakan who were present in the court room and accused them of having opened fire. 26. On 22 December 1992, the village guards Cengiz Kaçmaz, Mehdi Özbay, Şehmus Seyda, Tacettin Sakan, Nevaf Aydın, Mehmet Seyhan, Halil Aktan, Ethem Seyhan, Tevfik Akbay, Rahmi Kaçmaz and Abbas Taş appeared before the Midyat Assize Court. They denied the allegations against them and stated that the empty cartridges found at the scene of the crime had been placed there by their enemies in order to implicate them in the crime. They maintained that on two previous occasions they had to use their weapons in the Ziyaret region. On 21 March 1992 a group of between 1000 and 1500 villagers, including the Çalpınar residents, demonstrated during the Nevroz celebrations by marching towards the village of Kutlubey. When the villagers arrived in the vicinity of Hazzaze, the gendarmes and the village guards from Kutlubey intervened and fired warning shots in order to disperse the crowd. Moreover on 13 April 1992 there had been an armed clash between the village guards and the members of the PKK in the Ziyaret region, near the village of Kutlubey. According to an incident report drafted by the gendarmes on the following day, although the village guards fired 447 bullets the gendarmes were only able to collect 215 empty cartridges due to the rain and the crowd of villagers who gathered at the place of incident. 27. At the same hearing the court heard the non-commissioned officer Ali Kılıç. Mr Kılıç had been on duty at the Gendarmerie Command in Kutlubey on the day of the incident. He stated as follows: “I have been serving at the Kutlubey Gendarmerie Command for one and a half years. Kutlubey is a big village. I know the accused village guards. They are from Kutlubey and they support the State. We perform our duties together. I remember the day [of the incident]. I was keeping guard at night because we were expecting an attack. ... I was with three other soldiers and three village guards. The names of the village guards were Tevfik Akbay, Rahmi Kaçmaz and Halit Aktan. ... The village guards Hasan Kaçmaz, Nevaf Aydın and Mahmut Başak were together with my colleague, Arif Güner. The village guards Cengiz Kaçmaz, İsmail Kaçmaz and Tacettin Sakan were with Sergeant Kazım Demirbaş. The rest of the village guards were keeping guard near the village. We were on duty until 6 a.m. No incident took place that night. Then, I went to the command. [At the command] they told me that the Midyat commander had announced the occurrence of the incident on the radio. It took place at the border with the province of Midyat. Our command and the village of Kutlubey are in the province of Nusaybin. The district gendarmerie commander ordered the village guards to gather at the command. All the village guards had gathered at the command within 15 minutes. I waited for the commander, but he did not come. In the meantime, I checked all the weapons of the village guards in order to see whether or not they had been used. The village guards had previously been ordered to leave their weapons after their shifts of duty. It was obligatory to clean the weapons with a ramrod. I checked all the weapons of the village guards one by one. Some of the weapons had been kept in good order. Some of them, however, were dusty. I checked these weapons just after the incident took place. I did not observe a mark or a smell of gunpowder. We had been informed that the villagers would march towards the village of Kutlubey during the Nevruz celebrations. In fact they had lit a fire in the neighbouring villages one night before Nevruz. Kutlubey is the only village in that region that has village guards. The other villages do not have village guards. ... [During the Nevruz celebrations] twelve members of the PKK forced the villagers to march towards Kutlubey. They alleged that they had their martyrs there. I tried to stop the group and told them that what they had been doing was illegal. I asked the village guards to repeat the same things in Kurdish. However, the militants continued to force the villagers to march. Then I shot warning shots. The helicopters arrived later. [The helicopters] should not have fired. [When they opened fire] the people ran away. ... On 14 April 1992 the PKK militants attacked the Kutlubey village. A village guard called Muhittin died. The village guards and our forces opened fire. The terrorists went away. In these kinds of attacks it is impossible to collect all the cartridges. Some of them can be collected but not all. The village guards have Kalashnikov rifles. We have G‑3s or MG-3s. The bullets [for these rifles] are 7.62 calibres. However, the structure of those bullets is different. You can tell which bullet matches which rifle.” 28. On 19 January 1993 several weapons were submitted to the court. However they were sent back as none of these were the village guards’ weapons which were previously submitted for ballistics examination. 29. On 2 February 1993 the Midyat Assize Court ordered the release of the village guard Abbas Taş pending trial. 30. On 9 February 1993, upon the requests of the Midyat Public Prosecutor, the Governor and the director of the Midyat prison, the Midyat Assize Court decided to transfer the case to Denizli Assize Court in order to maintain public security in the area. It held that it was necessary to transfer the case due to the hostility that the parties had shown to each other, the difficulty that they had in travelling to the court house and the tension created in Midyat on the day of the hearings. It further held that the situation had served to encourage the PKK to increase its terrorist activities in the region. 31. On 1 March 1993, at the first hearing held before the Denizli Assize Court, the court requested to have all the accused transferred to Denizli prison. It sent letters rogatory to the Midyat Assize Court and the Nusaybin Assize Court to take the statements of fifteen accused who had been released pending trial. It also sent a notice to various regional authorities requesting to be informed of the addresses of several witnesses. Furthermore it requested the removal of the bullet found in Süleyman Acar’s body. The court also repeated the Midyat Assize Court’s request to have the village guards’ weapons which were deposited in safe storage at the Nusaybin Gendarmerie Command. 32. On 2 March 1993 the Denizli Assize Court requested the Midyat Assize Court to take Süleyman Acar’s statement. On 12 March 1993 the Midyat Public Prosecutor filed an additional bill of indictment against the twenty-seven guards for the attempted murder of Süleyman Acar. 33. On 29 March 1993 Süleyman Acar appeared before the Midyat Assize Court and stated as follows: “I was taken to Diyarbakır State Hospital. I was operated on there. I do not know whether they removed a bullet from my body. I was unconscious. I was not told that a bullet had been removed from my body. I was wounded in the calf. There was a bullet exit wound on my knee. It is probable that the bullet had not remained in my leg.” 34. On 5 April 1993 the applicant Hüseyin Akan gave the following statement before the Midyat Assize Court: “On the day of the incident, the minibus that I was in was stopped by a group of armed people. They made us get out of the vehicles and line up. The person called Ethem gave his gun to Cengiz Kaçmaz. Cengiz Kaçmaz signalled with the gun to the others and they all fired at us. I have identified them because Cengiz’s face was only partially covered and Ethem’s face was completely uncovered. During the incident my brother Abdülkadir and my father Mehmet died.” 35. On 20 April 1993 Sergeants Arif Güner and Kazım Demirbaş appeared before the Denizli Assize Court. Arif Güner stated as follows: “On the day of the incident I was keeping guard with the village guards from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. As far as I remember I was with Tacettin Sakan, Nevaf Aydın and Mahmut Başak. ... The place where we were keeping guard is two hours’ walking distance from where the incident took place. The other accused village guards were keeping guard with the other soldiers. ... I went back to the command with the village guards. All the accused village guards were with us. We stayed at the command for an hour and a half in order to have breakfast. As a result it is impossible that the accused were involved in the incident. ... On the Nevruz day the villagers marched to the village of [Kutlubey]. We fired warning shots that day. It was raining, therefore we could not collect the cartridges. It is probable that someone else collected the cartridges. ... We always clean the weapons when we return to the command. On that day the weapons were clean. There was no mark or smell of gunpowder. It is impossible that the village guards killed or wounded the villagers. The three of them were with me and the others were with their commander. Some of them were keeping guard near the village.” 36. Sergeant Kazım Demirbaş reiterated his colleague’s statement and said that the village guards Cengiz Kaçmaz, Bedran Göktekin and İsmail Kaçmaz had accompanied him on the day of the incident. 37. At the hearing held on 26 April 1993 the court requested the removal of the bullets found the bodies of Süleyman Acar, İbrahim Akan and Salih Acar’s bodies, if this operation would not cause a threat to their health. 38. On 20 May 1993 the Denizli Assize Court ordered the release of the village guard Cengiz Kaçmaz pending trial. 39. On 17 June 1993 the court requested to have an interpreter since some of the accused and the interveners did not know Turkish. Furthermore it once again repeated its request concerning the submission of the weapons. It sent a notice to the State of Emergency Region Governor and the Mardin Governor in this regard, emphasising the decisive role of this evidence for the case. 40. On 25 June 1993 Mardin State Hospital informed the court that it was too risky to remove the bullet from İbrahim Akan’s leg since it was too close to the nerves. 41. On 7 July 1993 the Midyat Public Prosecutor made the following statement before the Assize Court in Rize at the request of the Denizli Assize Court: “At the material time I was the public prosecutor in Midyat. ... The gendarmes and soldiers were at the scene of the incident when I arrived. I saw 7 or 8 dead bodies lying on the right and the left side of the road. It seemed that they had been shot at close range. ... I told the soldiers to collect the empty cartridges. ... While I was carrying out the autopsies, I realised that the soldiers were not collecting the empty cartridges. I personally collected the empty cartridges that were near the dead bodies with the help of my assistant. I drafted a report. More empty cartridges could have been collected. I collected as many as I could. It seemed that the cartridges had been fired recently. There was a smell of gunpowder. It was obvious that they had been fired recently. The base of the cartridges (mermi dip çukurları) had not oxidised. There were no rifles around, only empty cartridges. ... In my opinion the empty cartridges had been fired from the weapons that killed the villagers. ... There were traces of newly extinguished fire and human excrement in a cave near the road. In my opinion this shows that the murderers laid an ambush before the attack.” 42. On 14 July 1993 twenty eight Kalashnikov rifles which belonged to the accused were deposited in safe storage at the Denizli Assize Court. The following day the bullet removed from Reşit Acar’s leg was also deposited in safe storage at the court. 43. In a report dated 20 July 1993, issued by the Diyarbakır State Hospital, the court was informed that there were fragments of bullet in Süleyman Acar’s body but that it was not possible to remove them. 44. On 7 September 1993 the Denizli Assize Court requested the Forensic Medicine Institute in Istanbul to examine whether or not the 66 empty cartridges found at the scene of the crime and the bullets removed from the applicant Reşit Acar and from the body of Sabri Acar had been fired from the weapons of the village guards. The court further requested that Süleyman Acar’s medical situation be reassessed and that the court be informed whether the fragments of bullet could be removed from his body. 45. In a ballistic report dated 28 October 1993, the Forensic Medicine Institute confirmed the findings in the Diyarbakır Provincial Criminal Police Laboratory’s report. Additionally it stated that three cartridges had been fired from a “Nato-type” rifle of 7.62-mm calibre. As regards the two bullets removed from the bodies of Sabri Acar and Reşit Acar, the report stated that the bullets in question had oxidised and, consequently, could no longer be used for comparative tests. It could not therefore be determined whether or not the two bullets had been fired from the weapons belonging to the village guards. 46. In its report dated 8 November 1993 the Forensic Medicine Institute informed the court that it was possible from a medical perspective to remove the fragments of bullet found in Süleyman Acar’s body. At the following hearing the court decided not to carry out an operation on Süleyman Acar as a ballistic examination of these fragments would not yield any positive results. Furthermore it ordered the release of the village guards Mihdi Özbay, Şehmus Seyda, Tacettin Sakan, Nevaf Aydın, Mehmet Seyhan, Halit Aktan, Rahmi Kaçmaz, Ethem Seyhan and Tevfik Akbay pending trial. 47. In their statements given before the court on 20 December 1993 all the accused denied the charges against them and requested to be acquitted. 48. Between 1994 and 1996, during the seventeen hearings that were held before the Denizli Assize Court, the court took the statements of witnesses by sending letters rogatory to the courts where they resided, since most of them had moved to different parts of Turkey and in some cases their addresses were not known to the court. 49. On 2 July 1996 a report describing Erdal Acar’s medical history was submitted to the court. However as the report did not contain any remark concerning the bullet in his body, the court sent a letter rogatory to the Antalya Assize Court re-formulating its request regarding the removal of the bullet. 50. In a petition dated 17 February 1997, the applicant İbrahim Akan informed the Denizli Assize Court that he had already been told three times at Mardin State Hospital that the bullet in his leg could not be removed. Mr Akan also stated that he did not have the financial means to travel to Denizli and have his leg operated on in a hospital there. On 27 February 1997 the court sent a note to the Denizli Public Prosecutor requesting that an operation be carried out on İbrahim Akan in a hospital in Izmir to remove the bullet in his leg, if this operation would not pose a threat to his health. 51. On 12 August 1998, after several attempts to track down İbrahim Akan who had moved without informing the authorities of his new address, he was found and was sent to the Atatürk Eğitim Hospital in Izmir for examination. According to the medical report drafted on 31 August 1998, although there were some medical risks involved, it was possible to remove the bullet. 52. Following the applicants’ allegations concerning pressure and intimidation exerted by the security forces an investigation was initiated by the domestic authorities. On 8 February 1999 Selim Acar gave the following statement to the public prosecutor: “Osman Acar and İsmet Acar are my brothers. İsmet was killed in the incident that took place in 1992. Osman Acar has been living in İzmir for 30 years. He rarely comes to the village. The last time he came to the village was in 1993 on the occasion of our mother’s funereal. I have not seen him since then. Nobody has threatened me in connection with my brother’s killing. On several occasions I have been taken into custody during the operations against the PKK because of my alleged involvement in the activities of the terrorist organisation. My relatives and I have not been threatened. The head of the Kutlubey village guards, Cengiz Kaçmaz, has not threatened us. We are on perfectly reasonable terms. We stay at his house when we visit the village of Kutlubey.” 53. In a petition dated 21 February 1999, the applicant Osman Acar informed the Denizli Assize Court that village guards, including Cengiz Kaçmaz, had threatened members of his family, in particular his brother Selim Acar and his wife Halime Acar. 54. On 17 November 1998 the court sent an order to the İzmir Assize Court to ask for İbrahim Akan’s permission to remove the bullet from his leg. On 23 February 1999, as the Izmir Assize Court was unable to find İbrahim Akan, the court sent a letter to the Midyat public prosecutor asking the whereabouts of İbrahim Akan. During the following seven hearings the court continued to try to ascertain the address of İbrahim Akan. 55. At the hearing of 13 June 2000 the public prosecutor requested the conviction of the accused as charged. The lawyer of some of the accused requested additional time to submit his defence on the merits. In order not to delay the proceedings any longer, the court decided to annul the interim order to remove the bullet from İbrahim Akan’s leg. It decided to send letters rogatory to assize courts in different cities to obtain the final statements of the accused. 56. On 18 July 2000 all the accused, except one, presented their oral submissions on the indictment. They all alleged that the incident was a trap for the village guards which had been set by the PKK. 57. Approximately fifty hearings were held before the Denizli Assize Court. In these hearings the court sent several letters to public prosecutors in different regions to find out the addresses of the witnesses. All the applicants filed petitions with the court at different times requesting to intervene in the criminal proceedings. After the submission of all the birth registry records, the court established their relationship with the deceased and accepted their request to intervene. Furthermore the court examined the statements of various witnesses, accused and interveners which were given before different assize courts, on different dates. 58. On 20 November 2000 the court decided to acquit the village guards. The court drew the following conclusions from the evidence: “The statements which the witnesses and the complainants made when interrogated by the public prosecutor were different from those they later made before the court. In particular, in his statement before the public prosecutor, Salih Acar stated that the accused had covered their faces when they stopped the convoy, whereas in his statement to the court he did not specify whether or not the attackers had covered their faces. Süleyman Acar did not mention in his statement to the public prosecutor that it had been Cengiz and Ethem who had attacked them, whereas he stated before the court that it had been the village guards Ethem and Cengiz who had attacked them. Reşit Acar also stated before the public prosecutor that he did not know who had attacked them because their faces had been covered. However, in his statement before the court he said that Cengiz’s face had been completely uncovered, but that Ethem’s face had been covered. The witnesses Salih Akay, Hüseyin Akan and Selim Acar gave no description of the identity of the attackers in their previous statements. Furthermore, those witnesses did not state whether or not the faces of the attackers had been covered. However, in their statements before the court, they gave a detailed account of the events and identified Ethem and Cengiz as the village guards who had opened fire on them. The village of Çalpınar was 10 kilometres away from the village of Kutlubey. It was highly probable that the inhabitants of the two villages did not maintain close relations or contacts. It was therefore unlikely that the complainants could have identified the accused village guards as the attackers. Even assuming that the accused village guards Cengiz and Ethem were among the group of people who had attacked the complainants, there was no reasonable explanation as to why some of the village guards had covered their faces and some had not. In their statements the non-commissioned officers Ali Kılıç, Kazım Demirbaş and Arif Güner had said that they had kept guard together with the accused village guards from 6 p.m. on 19 April 1992 to 6 a.m. on 20 April 1992. It appears from the non-commissioned officers’ statements that the village guards returned to the gendarmerie command after they had completed their shift of duty. It further appears that the weapons belonging to the village guards had not been used during the morning when the incident had taken place. The non-commissioned officers confirmed that fact. Accordingly, it could not be concluded that the accused village guards had been involved in the killing of the villagers. In the ballistic report by the Forensic Medicine dated 28 October 1993, it was stated that 66 cartridges had been found at the scene of the crime, 63 of which had been fired from weapons belonging to the accused village guards. However, that evidence in itself is not sufficient to convict the village guards. First, it is still not known from whose weapon the remaining cartridges were fired. Secondly, it could not be determined by the laboratory whether or not the bullets removed from the bodies of Sabri Acar and Reşit Acar were fired from weapons belonging to the village guards. In their submissions the accused village guards stated that the empty cartridges found at the scene of the crime had been placed there by their enemies in order to implicate them in the crime. In fact, on 21 March 1992 the village guards and the security forces had opened fire in order to stop a march that was being carried out by members of the terrorist organisation. Furthermore, in a clash between the security forces and members of the illegal organisation on 13 April 1992 the security forces, as well as the village guards, had opened fire on the PKK members. In a report dated 13 April 1992, it was stated that 447 bullets had been fired and 215 empty cartridges had been recovered from the scene of the crime. It therefore appears that 232 empty cartridges were not found. It is highly probable that empty cartridges from the incident of 20 April 1992 were placed at the scene of the crime before or after the villagers were killed by unknown persons.” 59. On 9 February 2001 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation against the decision of the Denizli Assize Court. 60. On 4 December 2001 the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his opinion. He noted that the bullet in İbrahim Akan’s leg had not been removed. Moreover he noted that the court’s decision to acquit the village guards was in contradiction with the findings in the ballistic report of 23 June 1992 and the statements of four witnesses who had recognized two of the village guards and of the Midyat Public Prosecutor. The public prosecutor subsequently recommended the quashing of the decision of the first-instance court and the conviction of the ten accused village guards. 61. On 7 February 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first-instance court in respect of seventeen of the accused village guards. Moreover, in the light of the findings in the ballistics reports dated 23 June 1992 and 28 October 1993 and the statements of the Midyat Public Prosecutor, the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first-instance court in respect of ten of the accused. In its detailed decision the court further held that to try to remove the bullet in İbrahim Akan’s leg would have been too risky for the patient as was pointed out in the Izmir Atatürk Eğitim Hospital’s medical report. 62. The criminal proceedings were reopened before the Denizli Assize Court against ten of the accused village guards. At the hearing of 25 March 2002 the court decided to send letters rogatory to assize courts in five different cities to obtain the statements of the accused and the interveners. 63. On 25 May 2003 Denizli Assize Court convicted the accused village guards as charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The summary of the court’s decision is as follows: “In view of the autopsy reports, there is no question as to the cause of death of the six villagers. Instead, the question to be resolved is whether those who fired on the villagers were the accused village guards. It is not possible to rely solely on the witness statements as they are contradictory on several points. However the witness statements given during the preliminary investigation seem to be, in general, objective. Relying on these initial statements it is established that the persons who had fired had their faces covered in order not to be recognised. The court is not convinced by the statements in which certain witnesses claimed to have recognised Ethem and Cengiz. Even assuming that Ethem and Cengiz were among those who had fired, there is no reasonable explanation for the fact that they had not covered their faces when everybody else had done so. Furthermore, in the court’s opinion, what a commander would normally do when he had been notified of an incident would be to go to the scene of the incident as soon as possible. However in the present case, the fact that the non-commissioned officer Ali Kılıç checked all twenty seven weapons one by one without taking any action is incomprehensible. Moreover the court notes that the Midyat Public Prosecutor maintained that the soldiers were not collecting the empty cartridges to help him and that he had personally to collect the empty cartridges which were near the dead bodies. In view of the above, the court concludes that Ali Kılıç, Kazım Demirbaş and Arif Güner were trying to defend the accused who were working with them to fight against terrorism and it does not therefore find their statements reliable. The court notes that the bullets removed from the bodies of Sabri Acar and Reşit Acar, can no longer be used for comparative tests to determine from which of the weapons they had been fired as the bullets in question have oxidised. Furthermore it is not possible to remove the bullet from İbrahim Akan’s body due to medical complications. Considering the Midyat Public Prosecutor’s statements where he said that there was a smell of gunpowder, the court comes to the conclusion that the allegation concerning the placing of empty cartridges at the scene of the incident, in order to implicate the village guards in the crime, is not corroborated in any persuasive manner by eyewitnesses or other evidence. Moreover the fact that three of the sixty-six cartridges were not fired from the village guards’ weapons cannot be taken as a proof of their innocence. It is possible that one of the village guards had a weapon that had not been seized by the authorities after the incident. In conclusion, relying on the findings of the ballistic report and the statements of the Midyat Public Prosecutor who had an impartial position in the present case, the court decides that ten of the accused village guards are responsible for the wounding and killing of the villagers whom they considered to be PKK supporters.” 64. This decision was appealed against ex officio pursuant to domestic law. However the village guards also filed an appeal against the decision of the first-instance court. 65. On 29 February 2004 the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his opinion to the court, recommending that the decision of the first-instance court be quashed. He noted that despite the fact that the relevant domestic law required that the opinion of the accused on the decision of the Court of Cassation should be sought, the court had failed to do so in the case of two accused village guards. 66. On 9 December 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first instance court in respect of two of the village guards and upheld it as regards eight of them.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. On 11 March 1997 the applicant acquired a car – a Renault 21 Nevada - at an auction organised by the Białystok Tax Office. Having subsequently had certain technical defects of the car repaired, the applicant applied to the Białystok Municipal Office for registration. On an unspecified date the Director of the Office refused to do so on the ground that the car was unfit for use and could therefore be used only as scrap-metal. After numerous entreaties of the applicant, the Director orally agreed to register the car on condition that the applicant replaced the engine and a part of the chassis. On 17 March 1997 the applicant requested the Białystok Tax Office to reimburse the costs involved in the acquisition of the new engine and chassis. On 15 April 1997 the Białystok Tax Office declined the applicant’s request on unspecified grounds. Subsequently, the applicant ordered a new engine and chassis and made an advance payment in the amount of PLN 3000. 10. On 20 March 1997 the applicant was served with a decision of the Director of the Białystok Municipal Office refusing his request to register the car. The Director referred to the fact that the identification numbers of the engine and chassis had been forged and that that it was therefore impossible to find out who had owned car before its acquisition by the applicant. Therefore, the car could not be considered as a “recovered stolen car” within the meaning of the Annex No. 7 to the ministerial Order of 12 October 1995 (§ 28 below), which was a prerequisite for obtaining new identification numbers. On 23 April 1997 the Białystok Governor upheld the contested decision on the same grounds. 11. In a letter of 5 May 1997 the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Prosecutor expressed regret for the administrative authority’s refusal to register the applicant’s car and remarked on the lack of consistency in the interpretation of the relevant provisions by the authorities handling the applicant’s case. He also suggested that the applicant request the prosecuting authorities, in their capacity as guardians of legal order, to join administrative proceedings on his behalf. On 7 May 1997 the Białystok Municipal Office informed the applicant that pursuant to the relevant regulations a car of unknown origin could not be registered. 12. On 3 July 1997 the Białystok District Prosecutor refused to institute proceedings against the public servants who had issued the administrative decisions in the applicant’s case, finding that they had no case to answer. 13. In reply to the applicant’s request, on 27 August 1997 the Ombudsman refused to act on his behalf, considering that the law only allowed new identification numbers to be engraved and the registration to be obtained on conditions which were not met in the applicant’s case. 14. On 8 September 1997 the Warszawa-Śródmieście District Prosecutor informed the applicant that the car in question, being “the subject of a criminal offence”, had been handed over to the Białystok Tax Office on the basis of a decision concerning exhibits, with a view to selling it at an auction under §§ 1 and 4 of the Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 6 March 1971 (§ 27 below). 15. On 2 October 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of 20 March 1997 and 23 April 1997. It found that the administrative authorities had failed to provide any reasons for their refusal of registration. In respect of the new chassis and engine identification numbers, the court noted that a conclusion as to whether “the stolen car has been recovered” had to be based on the final decision given either in the investigative or in the judicial proceedings. 16. By a decision of 13 February 1998 the Białystok Municipal Office stayed the proceedings concerning the permit to engrave new car identification numbers until the question whether the car had been “recovered” within the meaning of the applicable law was settled. 17. By a letter of 17 March 1998 to the Białystok Municipal Office, the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Prosecutor expressed the opinion that, in view of the fact that the Białystok Tax Office had been the legitimate vendor and the applicant, who had purchased the car in good faith, was its legitimate owner, there was no reason for a further delay in registering the car. In reply, the Białystok Municipal Office informed the prosecutor on 31 March 1998 that there was no possibility of registering a vehicle of unknown origin, that is, one lacking original factory numbers. 18. In a letter to the applicant dated 7 May 1998 the Białystok Appellate Prosecutor considered that there were no grounds on which disciplinary proceedings could be instituted against the Białystok prosecutors. All the same, he acknowledged that the case was “a complex one.” It could not be denied that the applicant was a legitimate owner of the car which he had purchased from a legitimate vendor. In the prosecutor’s view, the difficulty in registering the car stemmed from deficiencies in the legal provisions in specifying the necessary conditions that had to be fulfilled for a car to be registered. These conditions were defined by the Regulation of the Minister of Transport and Maritime Economy of 1 February 1993 (§ 27 below). He further observed that, according to the Supreme Administrative Court’s opinion expressed in the judgment of 2 October 1997, a final decision given either in the investigative or in the judicial proceedings, stating that the car had been stolen, should provide a sufficient basis for its registration (§ 15 above). 19. On 29 May 1998 the Białystok District Prosecutor informed the applicant that there were no grounds for instituting criminal proceedings against the public servants at the Białystok Municipal Office, because it had not been shown that when acting in the applicant’s case they had abused their powers. As for the charge of lack of diligence, this could not be proceeded with, given that the applicant had not suffered pecuniary damage which was sufficiently serious, that is in an amount exceeding 50 average salaries. On the same date the Białystok District Court rejected the applicant’s civil claim against the State Treasury for a declaratory judgment. The court considered that the applicant’s ownership was not in dispute. Nonetheless, the claim to establish that the car met the legal requirements for its registration could not be examined by a civil court. This would constitute an unacceptable way of controlling the lawfulness of an administrative decision, and it was only the Supreme Administrative Court which had jurisdiction to do so. 20. On 15 June 1998 the Białystok Regional Prosecutor requested the Minister of Transport and Maritime Economy to consider the possibility of granting the applicant, by way of exception, a permit for engraving new car identification numbers. It was argued that in all likelihood the car had been stolen by someone in obscure circumstances to the detriment of an unknown person and subsequently handed over to the tax office to be sold. The fact that the applicant could not be granted the permit to have new car identification numbers engraved had adversely affected his property rights in a manner which, given the circumstances of the case, could not be accepted. This request was later refused by a decision of 24 November 1998. 21. By a decision of 6 August 1998 the Białystok Regional Court quashed the decision of 29 May 1998 given by the Białystok District Court (§ 19 above), considering that since the applicant had not specified his claim, the question whether the civil courts had jurisdiction to entertain his case remained open. By a decision of 14 October 1998 the Białystok District Court rejected the applicant’s civil claim on the same grounds as those relied on in its first decision of 29 May 1998. 22. On 17 December 1998 the Białystok District Court dismissed the applicant’s new claim against the State Treasury for a declaratory judgment, considering that a claimant in declaratory civil proceedings could request the court to determine the existence of a right or of a legal relationship, but that it was not open to the claimant to seek findings of fact in such proceedings. 23. On 23 January 1999 the Warsaw District Prosecutor discontinued the proceedings, instituted at the applicant’s request, concerning the theft of the car and the forging of its identification numbers, on the ground that the perpetrator of the offence was unknown. By a decision of 8 March 1999 the Białystok Municipal Office refused the Białystok Regional Prosecutor’s request to resume the stayed proceedings concerning the permit for engraving new car identification numbers (§ 16 above), considering that the original factory car numbers had not been conclusively established. On 18 March 1999 the Białystok Regional Prosecutor lodged an appeal against this decision with the Regional Self-government Board of Appeal, submitting that since a preliminary question concerning the theft of the car had already been determined, the administrative authority was obliged to register the car. By a decision of 22 March 1999 the Board allowed the appeal and quashed this decision. 24. On 15 April 1999 the Białystok Municipal Office again refused to grant the applicant a permit for engraving new identification numbers, concluding that the car could not be considered “recovered by the owner or by an insurance company” since its factory numbers and the original owner had not been established in the course of the investigation. The applicant and the Białystok Regional Prosecutor appealed. The Prosecutor, in his appeal of 5 May 1999, referring to the failure to establish the original owner of the car and its factory numbers, expressed the opinion that the Annex No. 7 to the Order of the Minister of Transport and Maritime Economy of 12 October 1995 did not lay down such a requirement for registration and that therefore the first-instance organ had failed to interpret it correctly. 25. On 3 July 1999 the Białystok Self-government Board of Appeal quashed the impugned decision and referred the case back to the first-instance organ for re-examination, observing that the request should be examined in the light of a new legal situation which had in the meantime changed as a new Regulation had been enacted (see § 29 below). 26. By a decision of 19 July 1999 the Białystok Municipal Office consented to the engraving of new car identification numbers and, as a consequence, registered the applicant’s car.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant, Mr Alexandru Dumbraveanu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Chişinău. 7. The applicant is a policeman. According to the Law on Police Forces of 18 December 1990 the local administration is obliged to provide policemen with apartments within one year of their commencing employment. On an unspecified date the applicant filed an official request with the Municipal Council for an apartment. The Municipal Council rejected the request and the applicant brought a civil action against it. 8. On 22 June 1998 the Chişinău District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Municipal Council to provide him with an apartment. 9. On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant lodged an action with the Centru District Court seeking a change in the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 14 March 1997. In particular, he claimed money from the Municipal Council in lieu of an apartment. 10. On 8 September 2000 the Centru District Court decided to change the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 22 June 1998 and ordered the Municipal Council to pay the applicant 180,357 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 16,800 euros (EUR) at the time), the market value of the apartment. The Municipal Council filed an appeal against that decision. 11. On 8 November 2000 the Chisinau Regional Court allowed the appeal and in a final judgment reduced the amount from MDL 180,357 to MDL 111,240 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 10,500 at the time). 12. At the Municipal Council’s request, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed an application for annulment with the Supreme Court of Justice, but the application was dismissed on 4 April 2001. 13. The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the Bailiff failed to enforce. 14. On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the non-enforcement of the decision. In a letter addressed to the Municipal Council on 17 March 2003, the Ministry of Justice warned the former to execute the court judgment. 15. The judgment of 8 November 2000 was enforced on 11 September 2003.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicants, Mr J.S. and Ms A.S. are a married couple residing in Stegna. 9. By way of an administrative decision of 29 October 1948 a property owned by the second applicant’s father W.U. and located in Czarzaste-Chodubki was expropriated pursuant to provisions of the 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform. It was stated in the decision that W.U. was the owner of this property. 10. On 21 December 1948 this decision was upheld by the Minister of Agriculture, who considered that the factual findings of the expropriation commission as to the area of the property concerned could not be called into question given that the commission was composed not only of agents of the administration, but also of political representatives. 11. By an on-site protocol of 7 May 1949 a commission, established under the provisions of the 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform, inspected the property and found that land situated in Czarzaste-Chodubki owned by the second applicant’s father W.U. consisted of 68 hectares of land, out of which 50 hectares 3175 square metres constituted arable land. 12. On 15 February 1990 the applicants lodged with the Ministry of Agriculture an application to have the expropriation decision declared null and void under Article 156 of the Code of Administrative Procedure or amended under Article 155 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. 13. On 3 March 1995 the applicants complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the failure of the administration to rule on their 1990 application. 14. On 24 March 1995 the applicants submitted further pleadings to that court, indicating that certain relevant documents had been found in the Ostrołęka Regional Office which showed that the on-site commission had wrongly calculated the surface of the property concerned in 1949. The area of the property was in fact, in the light of the newly found documents, 49,92 hectares of arable land. Thus, the property should not have been subject to expropriation within the framework of the agrarian reform law as it did not attain the minimum threshold of 50 hectares of arable land. The applicants further referred to an official protocol drawn up in 1957, which confirmed this finding. 15. By a judgment of 9 October 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the Minister of Agriculture to issue a decision concerning the applicants’ application of 1990 within two months from the date of the judgment. 16. By a letter of 10 November 1995 the applicants informed the Ministry that the property in question had had a surface of approximately 44 hectares, as shown by the protocol of 8 April 1948 and by another document drawn up by land surveyor A.P. in 1948. 17. On 17 April 1996 the Ministry of Agriculture obliged the Ostrołęka Regional Office to take further evidence in order to establish the legal status of the property concerned under the provisions of civil law, i.e. to determine who had been the owner of the property concerned at the time of expropriation. 18. The applicants objected thereto by a letter of 19 May 1996, pointing out that the question who had been the owner of the property in 1948 in terms of substantive civil law was entirely extraneous to the administrative case which was pending before the Ostrołęka Regional Office. Any issues concerning the assessment of the link between the former owner of the property and the applicants from the angle of substantive civil law on inheritance was irrelevant for the administrative case, which concerned only the examination of the lawfulness of the administrative decision on expropriation. They insisted that a decision on their restitution claim be given in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 1995, which had set a two-month time limit for the authorities to do so. 19. They reiterated their submissions in a letter of 29 May 1996. On 23 July 1996 the applicants again requested that a decision be given. On 3 December 1996 the applicants reiterated their request that the decision on the merits of the case be given and complained that the proceedings had remained pending for a long time. They referred again to the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 9 October 1995. 20. By a decision of 18 July 1997 the Ministry stayed the proceedings on the ground that a certain H.S. had submitted a request to quash the expropriation decision. She had argued that the second applicant’s father W.U. was not its owner, but only its lessee. She contended that it was her father T.U., who owned the property concerned. However, she had failed to submit conclusive documents to prove it. The proceedings were therefore stayed pursuant to Article 97 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure until relevant documents had been submitted. 21. The applicants appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings. They reiterated their request that a decision be given and emphasised that they had remained pending since 1990. They argued that the decision to stay the proceedings had been taken in disregard of the essential substantive law elements of the case. The documents required by the Ministry and relating to the civil law status of the property at the time of expropriation were entirely irrelevant to the administrative case. 22. By a letter of 6 August 1997 the applicants reiterated their arguments. The proceedings remain stayed. The applicants submit that all their efforts to have them resumed have been unsuccessful.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest. 9. In 1977 the applicant joined the Constanţa Bar (Romania). He practised as a lawyer until 1981, when he left for the United States. As a result, the Romanian authorities deprived him of his Romanian citizenship and required him to notify the Constanţa Bar that he had ceased his professional activities and to transfer to his colleagues the cases on which he was then working. 10. In a decision of 30 October 1981 the Constanţa Bar acknowledged the applicant’s request to cease his professional activities and decided to cancel the applicant’s membership. According to the applicant, he did not request that his membership of the Bar be cancelled. 11. In 1985 the applicant became a member of the New York Bar and practised there as an attorney until 1991. 12. In August 1990 the applicant applied to the Bucharest Bar to be registered as a lawyer there. On 5 November 1990 the Chairman of the Romanian Union of Lawyers (Uniunea Avocaţilor din România – “the UAR”) sent him the following reply: “Until a new law concerning lawyers is passed, we can only order the annulment of the Constanţa Bar’s decision to cancel your membership, so that you may resume your membership of that bar, but you will be deemed ineligible to practise until you return to this country. ... Indeed, the current law does not allow you to be a member of two bars, irrespective of the fact that one such bar is in this country and the other is abroad.” 13. The Chairman of the UAR confirmed his position in the course of subsequent meetings with the applicant in March 1991. 14. In March 1991, after his Romanian citizenship had been restored, the applicant returned to live in Romania. On 12 April 1991 he applied to the Constanţa Bar for the annulment of the 1981 decision, on the ground that he had never requested the cancellation of his Bar membership. He also applied for reinstatement as a lawyer and to be removed from the list of lawyers who were ineligible to practise as he had been a member of another Bar. 15. On 8 May 1991 the Constanţa Bar annulled the 1981 decision to remove the applicant’s name from the Bar roll but ordered his re-registration on the list of lawyers ineligible to practise, as he was still a member of another bar. 16. From 1991 onwards the applicant offered investment advice to several multinational corporate clients investing in Romania. 17. In 1994 he founded a company, Petru Buzescu SRL, subsequently renamed Buzescu & Co SRL, of which he was the sole shareholder and whose main field of activity was business and management consultancy. 18. On 19 May 1996 the Constanţa Bar decided to remove the applicant’s ineligible status and to register his name on the list of practising lawyers with effect from 10 May 1996. 19. From May 1996 until October 1999, given that he had been reinstated by the Constanţa Bar, he paid monthly Bar fees and UAR fees amounting to 1,983,000 Romanian lei (approximately 225 euros [“EUR”], according to the average exchange rate for the relevant period). 20. On 14 May 1996, in accordance with the Legal Profession Act (Law no. 51/1995) and the Rules governing the Legal Profession, the applicant submitted an application to the Bucharest Bar for a transfer from the Constanţa Bar. He did not receive any response. 21. On 27 June 1996 the UAR decided that, in accordance with Article 5 § 3 (j) of Legislative Decree no. 90/1990 concerning the organisation and practice of the legal profession, the applicant’s reinstatement as a lawyer fell within its own field of competence and not that of the Bar. The UAR thus found that the Constanţa Bar had acted ultra vires in taking its decision of 8 May 1991. Furthermore, it declared that the Constanţa Bar’s decision of 19 May 1996, annulling the applicant’s ineligible status, was illegal, having regard to the fact that it had been based on the unlawful decision of 1991. 22. It appears that the UAR’s decision of 27 June 1996 was never notified either to the applicant or to the Constanţa Bar. The decision was not communicated to him until 10 February 1998, when he was involved in other proceedings before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 23. On 3 September 1996, following a communication from the Embassy of the United States, G.D., head of a department of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, sent a letter to the Chairman of the UAR pointing out that the applicant’s re-registration with the Bar in 1991 was an act of reparation, that he was the legal adviser for Romania for a number of important companies from the United States mentioned in the letter, and that the best possible ways of resolving his case should be considered in the interests of good relations between the two countries. 24. On 27 November 1996, having received no response to his application for a transfer, the applicant submitted a renewed application to the Bucharest Bar for leave to be transferred from the Constanţa Bar. 25. As he did not receive any response, on 18 March 1997 the applicant brought an action before the Bucharest Regional Court, in accordance with the Administrative Litigation Act (Law no. 29/1990). He asked the court to establish that he had a right to be transferred from the Constanţa Bar to the Bucharest Bar, to compel the latter to allow his application for a transfer and to issue a decision authorising him to practise as a lawyer in a private law firm. 26. Following an application by the Bucharest Bar for a change of venue (declinare a competentei), the Bucharest Regional Court referred the case to the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 27. During the proceedings, and following several hearings, the Bucharest Bar invited the applicant to attend a meeting organised by the Bar Council on 15 May 1997. The applicant was informed at this meeting that the Bucharest Bar was willing to consider his application for a transfer, provided that he clarified his status with the UAR. He was then told that the UAR had annulled his reinstatement as a member of the Constanţa Bar. The applicant requested the Bucharest Bar to notify him in writing about its position in respect of his application for a transfer. On 4 June 1997 the Bucharest Bar sent the applicant a letter stating the position which it had expressed orally on 15 May 1997 and informing him of the UAR’s decision of 27 June 1996. 28. At the suggestion of the Dean of the Bucharest Bar, the applicant requested the UAR on 9 June 1997 “to clarify and resolve” his situation and to advise him of the manner in which his request could be met. 29. In July 1997 the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal requesting it to invite the UAR to join as a defendant the proceedings he had brought against the Bucharest Bar. He pointed out that he would be seeking to compel the UAR to disclose its decision of 27 June 1996. After several hearings, on 10 February 1998 the UAR submitted a copy of its decision of 27 June 1996 to the court. 30. On 18 February 1998 the applicant filed an application with the UAR requesting the annulment of that decision and confirmation of his status as a lawyer and a member of the Constanţa Bar, by way of reparation for an abuse committed under the communist regime. He also referred to his letter of 9 June 1997 to the UAR, pointing out that no answer had been given to his request that the UAR take the necessary decisions in order to clarify his situation. 31. On 14 March 1998 the UAR confirmed its decision of 27 June 1996, stating, inter alia, that the applicant had “committed fraud as he had practised as a lawyer all this time without legal authorisation”. No information was given to the applicant as to the manner in which his status could be clarified in order to practise as a legally registered lawyer. Similar statements concerning alleged fraud on the applicant’s part were made by the UAR during the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. 32. On 30 March 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against the UAR before the Bucharest Court of Appeal seeking the annulment of the decision of 27 June 1996. In his application, he submitted that: following the entry into force of the Legal Profession Act (Law no. 51/1995), the UAR had had no power to annul the Constanţa Bar’s decision of 1991; that, under section 5 of Law no. 29/1990, its decision of 27 June 1996 was invalid since it had been delivered after the one-year period prescribed by that provision and since only the courts had had jurisdiction to annul in 1996 a decision taken in 1991; and that, as regards the merits of his application, which the court was expressly invited to examine, in the absence of specific regulations indicating where to apply to remedy an unlawful administrative decision deleting him from the Bar’s list of lawyers, he had acted in good faith, according to the principles of administrative law, when he had lodged his application with the Constanţa Bar in 1991. The applicant pointed out that his administrative application of 18 February 1998 to the UAR had not constituted a remedy. That case was joined to the proceedings against the Bucharest Bar. 33. On 30 June 1998, during a hearing before the Court of Appeal, the applicant alleged that the decision of 30 October 1981 had been unlawful since he had not applied to have his registration as a lawyer cancelled and, consequently, the Constanţa Bar had been entitled to adopt its decision of 8 May 1991 in order to redress the abuse committed in 1981. The applicant submitted a number of questions to be answered by the UAR. The UAR replied to the question whether the fact that he had applied to the Constanţa Bar in 1991 for the annulment of the 1981 decision was unlawful: it considered that the applicant could have lodged such an application with the Bar, but that the decision to be taken fell within the UAR’s exclusive field of competence. The UAR conceded that the legal basis of its decision of 27 June 1996 was Article 5 § 3 (j) of Legislative Decree no. 90/1990. As regards the monthly Bar and UAR fees paid by the applicant, the UAR replied that these were insignificant and that, according to the letter of 3 September 1996 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the applicant provided legal services to many companies, but he had not established an office for that purpose, nor had he paid the 10% fees to the lawyers’ social-security fund, thus committing fraud and unlawfully practising the profession of lawyer. At the same hearing, suspecting that the decision of 27 June 1996 had been fabricated at a later date, namely during the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, the applicant also requested that the UAR’s original Register of Decisions be disclosed. 34. On 7 June 1998 the court acceded to the applicant’s request. However, on 15 September 1998 it reversed its decision of 7 June 1998 and ruled that the UAR did not have to disclose the original register. The court declared that, in the absence of a criminal complaint alleging forgery lodged by the applicant against the UAR, it was satisfied that the decision purportedly given on 27 June 1996 had indeed been given on that date. The court’s new position was due mainly to the production, by the UAR, of two photocopies, one being of an undated excerpt of the minutes of a meeting of 27 June 1996 describing the procedure leading to the impugned decision, and the other being of another page of those minutes with no link to the applicant’s case. Both these pages bore the stamp of the UAR and the signature of its secretary with the words “certified copy”. It is not clear from these documents how many pages the minutes of the meeting of 27 June 1996 amounted to in all, who signed the minutes or who voted during that meeting. 35. The applicant formally objected to that ruling, insisting that it was not his intention to prolong the procedure by lodging a criminal complaint and that the register could easily be disclosed, given that the UAR shared the same building as the court. The applicant’s objection was dismissed. 36. On 27 October 1998, during a hearing before the Court of Appeal, the applicant replied to questions submitted by the UAR. He contended that he had not provided legal services since he had come back to Romania, that he had not practised as a lawyer with an established office and that, consequently, he had not paid the 10% of his income required by Law no. 51/1995. 37. On 6 April 1999 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s application, holding that, pursuant to Legislative Decree no. 90/1990, the Constanţa Bar had acted ultra vires in taking its decision of 8 May 1991, and that, according to Rule 130 of the Rules governing the Legal Profession (“the Rules”) issued by the UAR in 1995, the latter had been entitled to annul the decisions of local bars on grounds of illegality. As regards the fact that in 1991 the applicant had lodged an application with the Constanţa Bar, considering himself entitled to be reinstated as a lawyer by the body that had unlawfully cancelled his membership with the Bar in 1981, the Court noted that the 1981 decision had been adopted on the basis of a request by the applicant himself. 38. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice against the aforementioned decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, submitting that that court had not taken into account all the arguments and the evidence submitted. Accordingly, in his grounds of appeal he submitted that the court had erroneously found that he had been at fault for not lodging an application with the competent body in 1991 for re-registration as a lawyer, given that he had applied in 1991, on the basis of Law no. 29/1990, to the body that had taken the unlawful and politically motivated administrative decision of 8 May 1981, although he had not requested to be deleted from the Bar’s list of lawyers. Considering that he should not have had to request to be readmitted to the legal profession because he had been excluded from the Bar by a decision without any legal basis, the applicant had lodged the application with the issuing body, namely the Constanţa Bar, as there was no provision for specific proceedings to redress the effects of such unlawful administrative decisions. The applicant also submitted that, pursuant to the aforementioned Legal Profession Act (Law no. 51/1995), which repealed Legislative Decree no. 90/1990, the UAR had no longer been competent in 1996 to annul Bar decisions, and that Rule 130 of the Rules could not have supplemented that law. The applicant underlined that the UAR’s decision of 27 June 1996 had been illegal because the UAR had been time–barred in 1996, according to Law no. 29/1990, and because the legal basis for the decision, namely Legislative Decree no. 90/1990, had been repealed by Law no. 51/1995. In his grounds of appeal and also in his written observations to the Supreme Court, the applicant added that, according to the documents in the file, the UAR had known since 1992 that he had been registered as a lawyer by the Constanţa Bar in 1991, and that, in accordance with Article 5 § 3 (d) of Legislative Decree no. 90/1990, the UAR had at that time not only had the power but also the duty to review and possibly annul the decision of 8 May 1991 by the Constanţa Bar. The applicant referred to the UAR’s reply to the questions of 30 June 1998 and concluded that, even supposing that the UAR should have been consulted in 1991 by the Constanţa Bar on his re-registration as a lawyer, he was not to blame for lodging the application with that Bar or for the latter’s or the UAR’s failure to follow the proper procedure. The applicant requested the court to consider whether it was normal in these circumstances that he could not practise his profession in Romania, and asked it to annul the UAR’s decision of 27 June 1996 and to allow his transfer to the Bucharest Bar. 39. In a final decision of 28 January 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held that, in 1991, Legislative Decree no. 90/1990 had vested in the Council of the UAR the exclusive authority to determine applications relating to the admission or readmission of lawyers to the Bar, and that the provisions of section 58 (g) and (i) of Law no. 51/1995 should be interpreted as conserving these prerogatives. On the basis of Rule 130 of the Rules, the court rejected the applicant’s submission that Law no. 51/1995 had removed the UAR’s powers under Legislative Decree no. 90/1990 to annul Bar decisions, conceding nevertheless that in the text of this law such a power was not expressly maintained. As to the time within which the UAR had been entitled to annul the applicant’s registration with the Constanţa Bar in 1991, the Supreme Court held that, given the issuing body’s lack of jurisdiction, the annulment could have been decided upon at any time. Finally, the Supreme Court pointed out that the annulment of the applicant’s registration with the Constanţa Bar on the ground of illegality did not remove his right to apply to the competent authority to decide on his application for re‑registration as a member of the Bar. 40. On 30 May 2001 the applicant applied to the Bucharest Bar for registration as a lawyer registered with a foreign Bar, but to date he has not received any reply in spite of the fact that, according to him, in the interim the Bucharest Bar has approved the registration of more than ten foreign lawyers. 41. On 14 February 2004 the Council of the UAR examined the applicant’s request of 12 April 1991 to the Constanţa Bar, the latter’s decision of 8 May 1991 and the UAR’s decision of 27 June 1996, annulling the applicant’s registration with the Constanţa Bar. The Council decided to repeal its decision of 27 June 1996, to restore the applicant’s previous status as a lawyer eligible to practise and to notify this new decision to him and to the Constanţa Bar. 42. On 23 February 2004 the Council of the Bucharest Bar granted the applicant’s transfer to the Bucharest Bar, ordered his registration on that Bar’s list of lawyers and decided to notify this decision to him and to the Constanţa Bar. 43. In a letter of 26 May 2004 the applicant stated that on 23 April 2004 the UAR had notified him of its decision of 14 February 2004, and that to date he had not received any formal notification from the Bucharest Bar concerning its decision of 23 February 2004.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Muş. 7. On 11 May 1994 the applicant was arrested and placed in custody by officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). 8. On 19 May 1994 he was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The same day, the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. 9. In an indictment dated 1 June 1994, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and eleven others for being members of the PKK. The prosecutor requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of Law No. 3713 (the Anti-Terrorism Law). 10. On 29 May 1997 the applicant was convicted as charged by the Istanbul State Security Court and sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. 11. On 14 December 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s conviction on the ground that the State Security Court had delivered its judgment without obtaining a final statement from the applicant, and thus had restricted the applicant’s defence rights. The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court for a further examination and the applicant remained in custody. 12. On 16 March 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court held its first hearing. 13. In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicant made numerous submissions for his release pending trial. He claimed that he was innocent and had been held in detention on remand for an excessive period, contrary to international norms. The court dismissed his request for release at each of the nine hearings held between 11 August 1994 and 28 November 1995 without indicating any reason. At each of the thirty-five hearings held between 1 February 1996 and 17 April 2001, it dismissed the request due to “the state of the evidence and the content of the case file”. 14. In the meantime, the applicant’s lawyer challenged his client’s continued detention before another court. In his petition of 7 November 2000, he stated that his client had been detained for six years and six months, despite the absence of any danger that he would destroy the evidence, which had all been submitted to the case file, or that he would abscond. The court dismissed the request on similar grounds (paragraph 13 in fine above), namely “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file”. 15. The Istanbul State Security Court held twenty-eight more hearings before delivering its final judgment. At fifteen of them, where the court merely reviewed the applicant’s continued detention, the applicant was not present. For the others, the court fixed them at approximately two month intervals. 16. On 12 April 2001 the State Security Court adhered to its first judgment and convicted the applicant of the offence. 17. On 8 October 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1966 and lives in Switzerland where she has been granted political asylum. She was the wife of Necati Aydın, whose body was found on 9 April 1994 in a location outside Diyarbakır, with his hands tied at the back. He had been shot in the head with a single bullet. 9. The facts of the case, particularly those events which occurred between 18 March 1994 and 9 April 1994, are disputed by the parties. 10. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 14-30). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 31-37). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 38-73). 11. The Commission, in order to establish the facts disputed by the parties, conducted an investigation with the assistance of the parties, pursuant to former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention. It appointed three delegates (Mr Jean-Claude Geus, Mr Marek Nowicki and Mr Marc Vila Amigó) who took evidence in Strasbourg on 17 September 1999 and in Ankara from 22 September 1999 to 24 September 1999. They interviewed the applicant as well as the following 11 witnesses: Ms Yasemin Aydın, Mr Şemsettin Aydın, Mr Sezgin Tanrıkulu, Mr Arif Altınkalem, Mr Bekir Selçuk, Mr Rıdvan Yıldırım, Mr Sami Güngör, Mr Ramazan Sürücü, Mr Yusuf Ercan, Mr Ali Uslu and finally Mr Cemil Çelik. A summary of the oral evidence given by these witnesses is found in Section E below (paragraphs 74-129). 12. Three other witnesses, Mr Osman Yetkin, Mr Raif Kalkıcı and Mr Tahir Baboğlu, were also summoned but did not appear before the Commission’s delegates. 13. Following the questioning of the above mentioned witnesses, the Commission considered it important to hear two police officers who had accompanied Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay to the Diyarbakır State Security Court (see paragraph 116 below). The Commission informed the parties on 27 September 1999 that the delegates wanted to interview the police officers in Strasbourg on 28 October 1999. The Government were requested to identify the two police officers and summon them for the hearing in Strasbourg. The Government asked the Commission to explain why a need was felt to hear the police officers in person as opposed to questions being put to them in writing, and further asked the Commission to reconsider its decision. Despite the Commission’s repeated explanations, the Government failed to identify the witnesses and informed the Commission on 26 October 1999 that they did not have time to identify the two police officers and therefore they would not be able to ensure their attendance at the proposed hearing. The Commission was therefore obliged to cancel the proposed hearing. 14. In 1994 the applicant was working as an anaesthetics nurse, and her husband, Necati Aydın, as an environmental technician. They were civil servants. Necati was also the president of the Health Workers’ Trade Union (Tüm Sağlık Sen). Previously, the applicant and her husband had been subjected to harassment and arrest by the security forces. Their activities on behalf of the trade union had drawn the unwelcome attention of the security forces and the police to them. 15. In March 1994 the applicant and her husband did not have a permanent residence as they had been subjected to several transfer orders and had been moving around Turkey to various places of work. The applicant was six months pregnant at the time. 16. On 18 March 1994 the applicant and her husband were at the house of Necati’s relative, Mehmet Hafif Ay, in Diyarbakır. At that time, a large number of relatives were also in the house. At approximately 8.30 p.m. police arrived at the house with Mr Mehmet Ay, whom they had arrested earlier at a coffee shop. The police officers entered the apartment. They asked for the identity cards of all those present, and questioned various members of the family. The police then took into detention all the family members present, including a five year old child. 17. The detainees were placed in vehicles. The applicant was placed in a car by herself and was accompanied by at least two police officers. In the vehicles the detainees were blindfolded and they were then brought to the rapid response force building (Çevik Kuvvet) for interrogation. The applicant was not feeling well due to her pregnancy. 18. When they arrived at the rapid response force building, the applicant was made to sit in a corridor waiting to be brought in for interrogation. As she sat in the corridor she could hear the screams of her husband as he was being tortured. 19. The applicant was taken in for interrogation at least three times. The first time, the applicant was questioned about where her husband had been during certain periods. The second time she was taken in, her husband was also present. Her blindfold was removed momentarily so that she could see her husband. She saw him naked and blindfolded in the middle of the room. His body was wet and he was crouched over, shivering. The applicant was made to listen while he was interrogated. During this time Necati gave a response to the police which contradicted an answer provided by the applicant. When this happened, Necati was removed from the room and the applicant was grabbed by the hair and slapped in the face. 20. On the third occasion the applicant was taken in for interrogation, the police ordered her to strip naked. Her husband was also in the room. The police threatened him that they would harm her if he did not answer their questions. The applicant was frightened and her condition deteriorated. She was removed from the room. Outside the room, the applicant was told by the police officers, “Do you know Yusuf Ekinci? His body was found in an empty lot. I do not think you want your husband to end up the same way”. On each occasion that she was removed from the room, she could hear the screams of her husband as he was being tortured. 21. The applicant was taken from the rapid response force building to the Diyarbakır police station. She was put in a cell with Ms Hüsniye Ay and the latter’s children, where they were kept for four nights. The applicant was released on 22 March 1994, without having been brought before a judge. During her time in detention, she had not been given the right of access to a lawyer, prosecutor or judge. 22. Ms Yasemin Aydın, a relative of the applicant’s husband who, as president of the Patriotic Women’s Association, was politically active on behalf of Kurdish women, was also detained and was tortured during her detention. This torture included hanging, beatings, electric shocks, insults and threats of rape. During her detention she was asked questions about the activities of Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay. She was released on 29 April 1994, having been brought before Prosecutor Osman Yetkin. 23. On 4 April 1994 the applicant’s husband and his cousin Mehmet Ay were finally brought before the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the Diyarbakır Court”). At 12.45 a.m. the two were taken for a medical examination. At 9 a.m. the two men signed for their possessions. At approximately 2 p.m. Mr Sezgin Tanrıkulu, a lawyer who had come to the Diyarbakır Court that day, saw Necati Aydın being brought into the court building. After that, there were only a few persons who witnessed what happened to the two men. 24. The records from the proceedings show that the Prosecutor demanded that they remain in custody, but the duty judge ordered their release that day. The Prosecutor lodged an objection to Mehmet Ay’s release with the Third Chamber of the Diyarbakır Court, but the appeal was rejected on 5 April. 25. At the time of their appearance before the judge, no lawyer was allowed to be present. 26. Despite the order of release from the Diyarbakır Court, the two men never emerged from the front door of the court building where family members and friends of the two men were waiting. When Sezgin Tanrıkulu came out of the building at approximately 2 or 2.30 p.m., he informed Hafif Ay that he had seen the two men. Mr Şemsettin Aydın, Necati’s father, was also waiting. He had, in fact, been waiting for his son outside the court building for several days. The only times he was not outside the court building was when he had gone to the coffee house to pray, which would have taken him 15 minutes at some stage between 11.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. and again about 15 minutes between 4 and 4.30 p.m. According to Şemsettin, if Necati had been released during those 15-minute periods, he would have been told about this by other people who were waiting there. The only other exit which the men could have used to leave the court building was a door located in the basement of the Diyarbakır Court, adjacent to the registry of the court. That exit could only be used by police vehicles. Persons in the registry informed lawyers that they had seen Necati exit from that door. 27. The following day, 5 April 1994, the families of the two men applied to the Prosecutor in order to obtain information. The Prosecutor told them that Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay had been released and that they had not been re-arrested. When Sezgin Tanrıkulu spoke with Mr Bekir Selçuk, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court, the latter told Mr Tanrıkulu that Necati had probably gone to join the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). He said similar things to another lawyer, Mr Arif Altınkalem, when he made enquiries. 28. On 8 April 1994 Yasemin Aydın was telephoned and asked to meet with Osman Yetkin, the Prosecutor who had released her. Apart from Mr Yetkin, the President of the Third Chamber of the Diyarbakır Court and another prosecutor and judge were also present at this meeting, held at the Diyarbakır Court. Mr Selçuk joined the meeting later. The discussion at this meeting concerned the question how Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay could have gone missing from inside the court building. The judge at the meeting noted that, apart from the front entrance, there was only one other entrance which was on the ground floor at the back of the building, which was used only by the police to transport prisoners to and from the Diyarbakır Court. The judge wondered whether “the ones with the radio...” could have taken the two men away, but did not finish his sentence. The men also discussed the “dirty games” which were being played in Diyarbakır at the time. At the end of the meeting, Mr Yetkin exchanged telephone numbers with Yasemin Aydın. 29. On the evening of 9 April 1994 villagers working in a field in the Silvan district near the Pamuklu river, about 40 kilometres outside Diyarbakır, discovered three bodies. The bodies were in a shallow grave approximately 100 metres from the main Diyarbakır-Silvan road. The bodies had their hands tied behind their back and a bullet in the back of the head had killed each of them. They had been buried side by side at a depth of about one metre. The name Süheyla was engraved in a wedding ring which was found in the pocket of one of the dead men. The families identified the bodies of Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay that evening. 30. The families retrieved the bodies the following day from the morgue at Diyarbakır State Hospital. Many people who wanted to visit the morgue were turned away. Three teachers, members of the teachers’ union, were taken into custody. While in custody, they were threatened and told that Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay had been killed in a clash. 31. Having been arrested on 18 November 1993, the applicant was examined by a doctor on 22 November 1993. According to a medical report drawn up at the time of her release, there were no signs of ill-treatment or torture on her body. 32. On 4 April 1994 the Anti-terrorist Department in Diyarbakır requested that Necati Aydin and Mehmet Ay be examined by a doctor. As a result of this request, on 4 April 1994 at 12.45 a.m., the applicant’s husband and Mehmet Ay were examined by a doctor, who concluded that there were no signs of ill-treatment or torture on their bodies. 33. At 9 a.m. they were taken to the chief of the security forces, who drew up a record to the effect that their personal belongings had been returned to them. The applicant’s husband signed this document. Later that day, the applicant’s husband and Mehmet Ay were brought before a judge, who ordered their release. Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay had then left the court building. 34. On 9 April 1994, the bodies of the applicant’s husband, Mehmet Ay, and an unidentified person were found buried at a distance of 40 kilometres from Diyarbakır. 35. The autopsies performed concluded that they had been summarily executed, as the bodies were found with the hands tied behind their backs. As rigor mortis had not yet completely set in, the autopsy report stated that Necati Aydın had been dead for about 24 hours. This meant that the killing must have taken place some four or five days after the release of the applicant’s husband. 36. An ex officio investigation was opened under file no. 1994/2233 in order to identify the PKK terrorists who were the perpetrators of the murders. The investigation progressed very slowly, as the terrorists who had executed the applicant’s husband were very mobile and often hid in neighbouring countries. They did not tend to return to the scene of the crime and witness statements were difficult to come by, since potential witnesses preferred to keep silent for fear of repercussions and intimidation. 37. Following the lodging of the application to the Commission, another ex officio investigation was opened in relation to the allegations of ill-treatment and torture during detention. However, on 6 October 1995, the Chief Public Prosecutor of Diyarbakır decided not to prosecute anyone as there was no evidence supporting the applicant’s allegations. 38. The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties. 39. According to a report of the arrest and house search, drawn up on 18 March 1994, Necati Aydın, Süheyla Aydın, Mehmet Ay and nine other persons were arrested in a house in Diyarbakır that day at 10 p.m. 40. A single sentence in a document dated 22 March 1994 relating to nine of the detainees, including the applicant, states that the detainees bore no marks of ill-treatment. 41. Also on 22 March 1994, the applicant and two other detainees were released by police officers from the Diyarbakır Police upon the oral instructions of the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court. 42. On 23 March 1994 Kerime Aydın, the sister of Necati Aydın, submitted a petition to the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Diyarbakır Court in which she expressed her concerns about her brother and asked to be provided with information about him. 43. On 25 March 1994 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court informed Kerime Aydın that her brother was being detained at the anti-terrorist branch of the Diyarbakır Police. 44. On 28 March 1994 a statement was taken from Mehmet Ay while he was in police custody. He stated that both he and Necati Aydın had been members of the PKK. 45. A statement was taken from Necati Aydın on 30 March 1994. He rejected the allegation that he had been an active member of the PKK. He also rejected the allegation that he and a number of his friends had been trying to set up a private hospital, which would be funded by the PKK and where wounded PKK members would be treated. He admitted that he had been a PKK sympathiser and that he had been arrested in 1992, but the charges against him had later been dropped. 46. According to a medical report drawn up at the Diyarbakır State Hospital at 12.45 a.m. on 4 April 1994, neither Necati Aydın nor Mehmet Ay bore any marks of ill-treatment. 47. At 9 a.m. on 4 April 1994, the belongings of Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay, which had been taken away from them following their arrest on 18 March 1994, were returned to them. 48. It appears from a letter signed by Ramazan Sürücü, the chief of the anti-terrorism branch of the Diyarbakır Police, that on 4 April 1994 Necati Aydın, Mehmet Ay and a certain Ramazan Keskin were referred to the Diyarbakır Court. It further appears from this letter that Ramazan Keskin had also been detained at the anti-terrorism branch. 49. On 4 April 1994 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court questioned Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay. Necati Aydın repeated that he had not been a member of the PKK, whereas Mehmet Ay stated that he had wanted to join the PKK in the past but had not been admitted. 50. Finally, on 4 April 1994, Judge Raif Kalkıcı of the Diyarbakır Court questioned Mehmet Ay and Necati Aydın. Both Necati and Mehmet confirmed the statements they had made to the Prosecutor earlier the same day. The Judge then ordered their release. 51. On 5 April 1994 the Third Chamber of the Diyarbakır Court rejected the objection, which had been lodged by the Public Prosecutor at that court, against the decision ordering the release of Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay. 52. On 9 April 1994 a report was drawn up by two gendarme officers, Ali Uslu and Cemil Çelik (see paragraphs 120-25 and 126-29 below), and signed by two gendarme privates. The report stated that a certain Mr Mehmet Korucu had come to their gendarmerie station and had informed them that he had found a body, buried in the Pamukçay area. The soldiers had visited the area at 1.30 p.m. and found the partially buried bodies of three men; their hands were tied at the back and each one had been shot in the head by a single bullet. There were no documents on the bodies to help establish their identities. However, the name “Süheyla” was engraved in one of two golden rings found in the pocket of the trousers of one of the bodies. The gendarmes had then informed the judicial authorities of their discovery. 53. On the same day Rıdvan Yıldırım, the Public Prosecutor of the Bismil district in whose jurisdiction the bodies had been found, visited the area together with Feyzi Kaymak, a doctor. The Prosecutor and the doctor drew up a report in which they recorded that each of the three men had been killed by a single gun shot to the head and that the bullets had exited the bodies. Rigor mortis had not yet set in at the time of the examination, and therefore it was estimated that the victims had been dead for about 24 hours. The doctor concluded on the spot that the cause of death was the destruction of the brain and that there was no need, therefore, for full autopsies to be carried out. After having been photographed in situ, the bodies were transferred to the morgue in Diyarbakır. 54. According to this report, drawn up by the Prosecutor and the doctor, the body which had been found with the rings, bore a number of ecchymoses. There was a mark on the left shoulder, measuring 3x3 cm, that had been caused by a blow; two ecchymosed areas on the scapular region on the back of the left shoulder, measuring 5x5 cm and 3x3 cm, had been caused by blows; an ecchymosed area on the right scapular region of the shoulder, measuring 4x4 cm, had been caused by a blow; and finally an ecchymosed area on the chondral rib, measuring 6x6 cm, was noted. 55. On 10 April 1994 the bodies of Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay were identified by their respective brothers. The third body remained unidentified. The bodies were photographed once more. The Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court issued a burial licence for Necati Aydın. 56. On 18 April 1994 the Bismil Prosecutor questioned Mehmet Naili Aydın, the brother of Necati Aydın. Mr Aydın confirmed that his brother’s release had been ordered by the Diyarbakır Court on 4 April 1994, but his family had not heard anything from Necati until they had been contacted by hospital workers and were told that Necati’s body was in the morgue. 57. On 26 April 1994 the Bismil Prosecutor questioned Mehmet Nuri Ay, the brother of Mehmet Ay. Mr Ay similarly confirmed that the Diyarbakır Court had ordered the release of his brother and Necati Aydın. He stated that he did not know how they had been killed and that he did not suspect anyone in particular. Mr Ay further stated that the third body, which had been found next to his brother and Necati Aydın, was that of Ramazan Keskin, a university student in Diyarbakır. 58. Also on 26 April 1994 the Bismil Prosecutor asked the commander of the Bismil gendarmerie to investigate whether the killings had any political aspects. 59. On 30 May 1994 the Bismil Prosecutor decided that the killing of the three persons had political aspects and therefore his office lacked jurisdiction to continue the investigation. The Prosecutor then sent the investigation file to the Diyarbakır Court which had jurisdiction to investigate the killings. 60. On 3 May 1995 Bekir Selçuk, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court, sent a reply to a letter which had apparently been sent to him by the Ministry of Justice’s International Law and Foreign Relations Directorate (hereinafter “the Directorate”) on 4 April 1995 and which concerned the application made to the Commission by the applicant. Mr Selçuk stated in this letter that his office was overseeing the investigation into the killings. Mr Selçuk was of the opinion that Mehmet Ay and Necati Aydın, both of whom had stopped working for the PKK, had been killed by members of the PKK with the aim of attributing their killings to the State and then making an application to the European Commission of Human Rights. The investigation into the killings was being conducted in the light of this information, but it had not yet been possible to apprehend the members of the PKK who had perpetrated the killings. Mr Selçuk finally stated that an indictment had been filed with the Diyarbakır Court on 30 November 1993 in which the applicant was charged with aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation. 61. On 6 October 1995 the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Diyarbakır decided not to prosecute six police officers for allegedly having ill-treated Süheyla Aydın during police custody in 1991, 1992 and in 1994. It was noted in this decision that there was no evidence suggesting that her allegations of ill-treatment, detailed in her statement which had been taken from her by a letter rogatory on 4 July 1995, were true. The medical reports drawn up at the time of her releases did not mention any marks of ill-treatment. 62. On 27 November 1997 Prosecutor Sami Güngör at the Diyarbakır Court asked the Diyarbakır Police and the Diyarbakır Gendarmerie to search for the perpetrators of the killings of Necati Aydın, Mehmet Ay and Ramazan Keskin. According to this Prosecutor, the killings had been perpetrated by a group of PKK members. 63. On 27 March 1998 a Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court sent a letter to the anti-terrorism department of the Diyarbakır Police, requesting that the two police officers, who had questioned Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay while they were in police custody and had then accompanied them to the Diyarbakır Court on 4 April 1994, be identified. 64. In his reply of 15 April 1998, the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters informed the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court that Necati Aydın, Mehmet Ay and Ramazan Keskin had been questioned while they were in police custody by police commissioner Taner Şentürk and by a police officer named Hüseyin Karaca. The three detainees had then been referred to the Diyarbakır Court by the Police Commissioner, Ertan Uzundağ, on behalf of Ramazan Sürücü. The letter further states that, as at that time it was not the practice to draw up release reports, the authorities were unable to determine the identities of the police officers who had actually accompanied the three men to the Diyarbakır Court. 65. On 12 May 1998 a statement was taken from Hüseyin Karaca. He said that on 2 April 1994 he had questioned Ramazan Keskin, the third person whose body had been recovered together with the bodies of Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay. Mr Karaca stated that he had not questioned Necati Aydın or Mehmet Ay and that he had not accompanied them to the Diyarbakır Court. He assumed that they had been taken there by officers working at the registry of the interrogation department. 66. On 22 May 1998 the Prosecutor Güngör at the Diyarbakır Court decided that he lacked jurisdiction to investigate the killings as there was no evidence suggesting that the killings had been carried out by members of the PKK and hence it was a case of homicide as opposed to a political killing. The Prosecutor added that the decision of non-jurisdiction of 30 May 1994 (see paragraph 59 above) had been based on presumptions. The file was sent back to the Prosecutor’s Office in Bismil in order for the investigation to continue. 67. On 28 May 1998 the Prosecutor in the town of İdil contacted his colleague in the nearby town of Bismil and informed him that a number of killings in the area, the majority of which had taken place between 1993 and 1996, had possibly been carried out by the same person or persons. The similarities lay in the way these killings had been carried out and in the weapons used. He asked the Bismil Prosecutor to forward to him details of the killings carried out in the jurisdiction of Bismil so that he could verify whether they were connected in any way. 68. On 9 September 1998 the Bismil Prosecutor sent a reply to his colleague in İdil, stating that seven persons had been killed in his jurisdiction between 1993 and 1996; three on 9 April 1994, and the remaining four on 14 September 1996. The bullets recovered after the killing of the four persons in 1996 had already been forwarded to the forensic department of the gendarmerie. No bullets or bullet cases had been recovered in relation to the killing of the three persons in 1994. 69. On 5 May 1999 the Directorate sent a letter to the Prosecutor’s Office in Diyarbakır and asked whether any empty bullet cases, bullets or other similar evidence had been found at the site where the bodies were found and whether any forensic reports had been drawn up. 70. On 6 May 1999 the Prosecutor’s Office in Diyarbakır forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office in the district of Bismil the Directorate’s letter of 5 May 1999. 71. On 7 May 1999 the Bismil Prosecutor replied that no bullets or bullets cases had been found in the area. 72. According to a number of documents drawn up by public prosecutors and soldiers between 1996 and 1999, each of which is one paragraph long and most of which are identical pro-forma documents, it had not been possible to find the perpetrators of the killings despite the investigations carried out and the visits made to the area where the bodies had been found. These documents contained no information indicating what specific steps had been taken. 73. On 23 June 1999 the Bismil Prosecutor informed the Directorate, in an apparent response to a request from the latter of 18 June 1999, that the investigation into the killings was still ongoing and that his office was being informed every three months about the investigation by the soldiers. No personal belongings, other than the clothes which the deceased had been wearing, had been found at the site where the bodies were discovered. 74. At the time of the events, the applicant was working as a nurse in Adana. Neither she nor her husband had ever been harassed by any authority until they became members of the trade union. After joining the union, they were repeatedly arrested, detained and questioned about their activities within the trade union. 75. She and her husband were both civil servants, and on a number of occasions they had been posted to different cities which made it difficult for them to live together. When they had challenged their repeated postings through the courts, they were told that their existence in Diyarbakır constituted a threat to peace and security, and that it was for this reason that they had been sent away from that city. They had both resigned their jobs and stayed in Diyarbakır. Necati had then found another job in Adana. Had they not been arrested, Süheyla and Necati would have left Diyarbakır for Adana after the evening meal on 18 March 1994. 76. However, that day she was taken into detention, together with her husband and a number of other persons, including a five year old girl. At the time of their arrest, they were in the house of Hafif Ay in Diyarbakır. They were taken to the rapid reaction force building in Diyarbakır and were blindfolded upon arrival. She knew the building well because she had been detained there on three occasions in the past. 77. During her detention, which lasted four days, she was questioned three times. She was asked why she kept coming back to Diyarbakır. A police officer told the applicant, “We have sent you away from Diyarbakır so many times and still cannot manage to get rid of you”. On one occasion she was held by her hair and slapped. During her time in detention, she often heard her husband Necati’s screams. On one occasion, her blindfold was removed and she was able to see her husband standing naked and wet. He was shivering. 78. Those questioning Necati repeatedly told him that they would harm Süheyla and strip her naked if he did not cooperate. She was also told by those detaining her to behave herself if she did not want her husband to end up like Yusuf Ekinci who had been killed in Ankara (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, 16 July 2002). The applicant, another female detainee and the latter’s children were then sent to the Police Headquarters in Diyarbakır where they were kept for four days. No statement was taken from the applicant while she was in detention. On the fourth day at midnight they were taken to the hospital for a medical examination (see paragraph 40 above) where a doctor, in the presence of police officers, asked the applicant if she had any marks of blows on her body. She replied that she did not. She was not physically examined by the doctor. She was then released at the hospital without having been brought before a prosecutor or judge. 79. On 4 April 1994 the applicant was informed by a lawyer that her husband had been brought before the judge at the Diyarbakır Court that day. She did not try to see her husband as she knew that it would be impossible to enter the building. In any event, her father-in-law Şemsettin and family members of Mehmet Ay were already waiting outside the court. 80. When Necati and Mehmet were not released that day, their families assumed that the judge had ordered their detention on remand and that they were transferred to the prison. When they contacted the prison that evening they were told, however, that the two men were not there. 81. The following day, i.e. on 5 April 1994, Şemsettin and the family lawyers contacted the Diyarbakır Court to ask about Necati and Mehmet. They were told that the two men had been released the previous day. The family members then began to fear that the two men would be killed. They continued their efforts to obtain information until the evening of 9 April 1994 when they were informed that the bodies of Necati and Mehmet had been found. 82. The witness was also in the house of Hafif Ay on the evening of 17 March 1994 and was also arrested together with Necati, Süheyla and the others. She was kept in a cell on her own and she was able to hear the screams of other detainees who were being tortured. The police officers began questioning her on the third day of her detention. She was beaten up, subjected to electrical shocks, hung from her arms and threatened with rape. 83. On 29 March 1994 she was brought before a doctor, together with approximately 20 other detainees, for a medical examination. The police officers who accompanied the detainees to the hospital threatened them and told them not to mention to the doctor any of the torture. Similarly, the doctor advised the detainees not to mention anything that might have been done to them if they wanted to avoid more. The detainees all said that they were fine. The witness was then brought before Osman Yetkin (see paragraph 12 above), a Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court, who ordered her release. 84. After Necati’s disappearance, when a number of family members were making enquiries into his fate, the witness was unable to join them as she was being treated by doctors because she had fallen seriously ill after the torture inflicted on her during her detention. 85. On 7 April 1994, i.e. subsequent to the disappearance of Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay but prior to the discovery of their bodies, the Prosecutor Osman Yetkin asked Yasemin to come and see him in the court building. On 8 April 1994 she and Hamit Ay, the elder brother of Mehmet Ay, went to meet with Mr Yetkin. However, on their arrival, Hamit Ay was not allowed in to see the Prosecutor. In the room where she met Osman Yetkin there were also another prosecutor as well as two judges present, one of whom was the President of the Third Chamber of the Diyarbakır Court. Bekir Selçuk, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Diyarbakır Court, joined the meeting at a later stage. A conversation ensued during which they all discussed what might have happened to Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay. At one stage one of the judges said “I wonder if it was those with the walkie-talkies?”. Some of those present in the room commented that some “dirty games” were being played in Diyarbakır which they were unable to solve. They also discussed the killing of Vedat Aydın, another member of Necati’s family, who had been killed in similar circumstances (see Şükran Aydın v. Turkey, no. 46231/99). They then promised Yasemin that they would continue their investigation to find the two men. 86. Three days after the bodies were found Yasemin was asked to meet with the Mr Yetkin and the Chief Public Prosecutor once again. During this meeting she was asked how the family was coping with their loss. They then apologised for having failed to do more to find the men alive. 87. The witness is the father of Necati Aydın. His son and a number of others were arrested in March 1994 and detained. All those detained, with the exception of his son and Mehmet Ay, were subsequently released. After the arrest of his son, the witness began waiting for him outside the Diyarbakır Court building. He would sit under the trees in the court’s garden, approximately 20 metres across from the entrance to the building. He would start waiting there as of 8.30 a.m. every day and would only be absent from the vicinity of the court during prayer times at midday and in the afternoon. Had his son been released during such an absence, he would have been informed by other persons who were waiting there for their relatives and whom the witness had befriended. On a number of occasions, the witness also went to the local hospital where, he was told, detainees would be brought for a check-up prior to their release. He unsuccessfully tried to obtain information about his son at the hospital. 88. On 4 April 1994 the applicant learned that his son’s release had been ordered by the court. However, his son did not emerge from the court building. The witness then went back to his village and did not return to Diyarbakır until he was informed that his son’s body had been taken to the morgue at the hospital. 89. During the time he spent waiting outside the court building, he had not seen any detainees being released; detainees whose release had been ordered by the court would be taken back to the detention places and be released after midnight. He never expected that his son would be released from the court but he continued to wait in the hope that he would get some news about him. 90. According to the witness, his son was killed because of his leftist views and also because of his involvement in trade union activities. A number of his son’s friends and in particular a relative, Vedat Aydın, had also been murdered in similar circumstances. 91. The witness is an advocate practising in Diyarbakır. He has appeared before the Diyarbakır Court on many occasions to represent clients and knows the court’s procedure and the court building well. 92. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, the court building was located in a courtyard which was surrounded by a wall. There were two gates opening into the courtyard. One of these gates was used by personnel working at the court and also by officials when transporting defendants who were detained on remand and suspects who were detained in police custody. The other gate was used by lawyers and the general public. The court building had three doors, two of which were for official use and the third door was used by lawyers and the general public. Lawyers were not allowed to speak with their clients who were brought to the court from police custody and the detainees did not have access to a lawyer. 93. A person taken to the court from police custody could be released by a prosecutor or judge. In that event, the suspect would be escorted by police officers to the door of the building, the one used by the general public, and released there. In 1994 it was not the practice of the court to draw up a release document; such a practice was not introduced until 1995. Personal belongings such as belts, money, watches, rings, etc., were returned to the detainees before they were brought before the judge at the court building. 94. On 4 April 1994 the witness went to the Diyarbakır Court building for unrelated business. After completing that business, and as he was about to leave around 2 or 2.30 p.m., he saw Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay being brought into the court by two or three policemen. He and Necati saw each other and exchanged looks in greeting. When the witness left the building he saw Hafif Ay, the elder brother of Mehmet Ay, who was waiting outside the gate, and he told him that he had just seen his brother and Necati being taken into the court building. 95. Family members waiting for detainees were a familiar sight outside the Diyarbakır Court building. Family members would start waiting there for the release of their relatives as soon as they had been detained, because once a person was detained it was not possible to know when he or she would be released; the maximum period of detention before a suspect had to be brought before a judge was 30 days at that time. 96. In the evening of 4 April 1994, Hafif Ay telephoned the witness and told him that neither his brother nor Necati Aydın had emerged from the court building. Mr Ay asked the witness if he had any information as to whether the two detainees had been released or been taken back to the police station. The following morning the witness spoke to the Chief Public Prosecutor Selçuk. Mr Selçuk confirmed that the judge had ordered the release of the two detainees. When informed that the two detainees had never made it to the court’s door, the Prosecutor told the witness that they had perhaps joined the PKK. 97. The Registry office of the Third Chamber of the Diyarbakır Court was located in the basement of the court building, next to the exit door used by police officers to bring detainees in and out. At a later date, officials working at the registry told the witness that Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay had been led away through that door. The witness did not convey this information to anyone else because he feared for the lives of the sources of this information. 98. This witness is also an advocate practising in Diyarbakır. He was acting for Necati Aydın at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. When his client was taken into detention in March 1994, the witness was not allowed to see him. This was because the legislation in force at the time prevented detainees, who were arrested for an offence falling within the jurisdiction of State Security Courts, to have access to their lawyers. The witness would also not be informed as to when Necati would be brought before a judge, although he knew that this would happen within 30 days, the maximum period of detention at the time. 99. On 4 April 1994 the witness was in the Diyarbakır Court building to represent a number of other clients at their trials. He did not come across Necati Aydın in the building but was told at a later stage by a court official that Necati had been there on that day. 100. The witness was informed on 5 April 1994 that Necati had been brought before a judge who had ordered his release but he had not been seen leaving the building. The witness then went to speak to Chief Public Prosecutor Selçuk. Mr Selçuk told him that Necati had been released and that he had probably joined the PKK. 101. The witness was the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Diyarbakır Court at the time of the events. He remembered that Necati Aydın was being investigated for membership of the PKK. 102. It was not the practice at the time of the events to draw up release documents. Sometimes a detainee, whose release was ordered by a prosecutor or judge, was escorted by police officers to a safe place and released from there. Otherwise a detainee was simply released outside the court building. In any event, detainees were not allowed to wander around freely inside the court building. 103. It would have been possible for him, as a Public Prosecutor, to find out the identities of the police officers who had accompanied Necati Aydın to the court building on 4 April 1994. However, he could not remember whether or not he had done this and whether he had subsequently questioned these police officers. He thought that he might have done so. In any event, he would not have recorded the identities of these police officers or what they had said to him in a document, in order not to jeopardise the police officers’ safety. Furthermore, the account of the police officers who had escorted Necati Aydın to the court building would not have been important to the investigation. 104. The opinions expressed in the document which he had drawn up on 3 May 1995 (see paragraph 60 above) had been based on the investigations. They were not based on subjective opinion. The witness believed that Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay had been PKK members. Necati was probably killed by PKK members because he had left the organisation. Perhaps he was killed because he had the same surname as Vedat Aydın, who had also been killed in similar circumstances. 105. Neither the fact that the release of Necati Aydın and his wife had been ordered by the judge for lack of evidence, nor the fact that neither Necati nor Süheyla had ever been convicted of an offence involving the PKK, had a bearing on the witness’ opinion that Necati and his wife were PKK members. The acquittal of Süheyla Aydın on charges of aiding and abetting PKK members was the personal opinion of the trial court judge. That acquittal did not mean that she was not involved in PKK activities. 106. The witness denied having been approached by family members of the deceased men (see paragraphs 85-86 above) and he did not remember whether he had met with advocates Sezgin Tanrıkulu and Arif Altınkalem and discussed the disappearance of Necati Aydın (see paragraphs 96 and 100 above). 107. His office would sometimes receive intelligence indicating that certain civil servants had been in contact with members of the PKK. In such circumstances, and when he was unable to obtain any evidence to indict such civil servants, he would ensure their transfer to other cities. 108. The witness still held the opinion that Necati Aydın had been killed by members of the PKK so that a complaint could be lodged against Turkey to the European Court of Human Rights (see paragraph 60 above). 109. The witness was the Public Prosecutor of the town of Bismil at the time of the events. The bodies were found in an area under his jurisdiction and he participated in the examination of the bodies on 9 April 1994 (see paragraph 53 above). 110. He did not deem it necessary to carry out a full autopsy in order to establish the circumstances leading up to the killings; the cause of death was established and that was sufficient. The way the killings had been carried out – in particular, the single gun shot to the head and the bodies being dumped at a roadside – led the witness to form the opinion that the perpetrators of the killings were members of the PKK. 111. Prosecutors would investigate a killing regardless of whether or not there had been an official request by a relative of the deceased person. During his time in Bismil there had been a significant number of killings in the area and each of these killings had been investigated by the authorities. 112. The witness is a Public Prosecutor and was appointed to the Diyarbakır Court in October 1996. From that date onwards he carried out the investigation into the killing of the applicant’s husband and the other two persons. He inherited approximately one thousand similar cases from his predecessor. 113. In a document which he signed on 20 November 1997 (see paragraph 62 above), the witness recorded that Necati Aydın had been killed by members of the PKK. He explained that, in an investigation into a killing which had taken place in that area at that time, the starting point would be that the perpetrators were members of the PKK. Other possibilities would also be investigated if any evidence came to light which suggested otherwise. On 22 May 1998 the witness decided that there was no evidence suggesting that the killings had been carried out by members of the PKK, and he sent the investigation file to the local prosecutor (see paragraph 66 above). 114. The witness was the chief of the anti-terrorist branch of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters where the applicant, Necati Aydın, Mehmet Ay, Ramazan Keskin and the others had been detained at the time of the events (see paragraph 48 above). 115. When a person was detained, his or her personal belongings would be taken away from that person and he or she would be asked to sign a document to that effect. When the detainee is about to be brought before a judge, the belongings would be returned and the person would be asked to sign the same document. This was what had happened in the case of Necati Aydın (see paragraph 47 above). 116. Two or three police officers would have accompanied Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay to the Diyarbakır Court on 4 April 1994. These police officers would not be the same as those who had questioned the detainees while in custody. 117. The witness had never been questioned by the authorities investigating the disappearance and the subsequent killing of Necati Aydın. 118. The witness is a police officer and was responsible for the detainees at the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters at the time of the events. He signed the document showing that personal belongings of Necati Aydın were taken away and had then been returned to him (see paragraph 47 above). 119. He did not remember who had accompanied Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay to the Diyarbakır Court on 4 April 1994 but it would be possible, by examining the documents at the place of detention, to determine the identities of these police officers. 120. The witness is a gendarme officer and was the deputy commander of the Kağıtlı Gendarmerie Station at the time of the events. 121. On the day in question a villager came to the station and explained that he had found three bodies in the fields. He and his superior, together with a number of soldiers under their command, went to the scene, which was situated approximately five kilometres away from the station and 100 metres from the main road. They checked the pulses of the three men and established that they were dead. 122. When the witness reached the area where the bodies were found, he formed the opinion that it was the PKK who had killed the three men, possibly because the PKK members had suspected that the three men were working for the State authorities. 123. It would not have been possible to reach the spot where the bodies were buried by car; only a tractor could have reached it. However, there were no tyre marks or foot prints near the scene. Similarly, there were no blood stains in the vicinity. The witness did not have any idea whether the three men had been killed on the spot where their bodies were found. If the men had been shot there, the shooting would not have been heard from the station because it was too far away. 124. The only road to reach the site was the one that ran between the town of Silvan and the city of Diyarbakır. This road was under constant surveillance by soldiers from his station. All vehicles and persons travelling on this road were searched. 125. His superior searched the bodies for any identification documents but, other than two wedding rings, he did not find anything to identify the deceased men. They also asked for support teams, approximately 40‑50 soldiers, to search the area for any evidence. None was found. They then informed the local prosecutor and handed the investigation over to him. His station continued to inform the investigating prosecutor every three months about any developments. He could not remember whether any inhabitants of villages in the vicinity had been questioned to establish whether they had seen or heard anything. If there had been any valuable information, it would have been mentioned. 126. The witness is a gendarme officer and was commander of the Kağıtlı Gendarmerie Station at the time of the events. The witness confirmed the sequence of events as described by his deputy Ali Uslu above. 127. The witness was asked by the Bismil Public Prosecutor to establish whether the killings had political connotations (see paragraph 58 above). He was not informed that the deceased men had disappeared after a judge had ordered their release. In the course of his investigation in the weeks and months after the discovery of the bodies, the witness visited the scene where the bodies had been found and also spoke to the local people who might have been able to provide crucial information. The names of those he questioned were recorded in his three-monthly reports. He continued this investigation until he left his post later in 1994, but the investigation was continued by his successor. 128. The ropes used to tie the hands of the deceased men were cut from the bodies by the witness and the soldiers under his command and left at the scene. As, in the opinion of the witness, the ropes had no evidential value, he did not deem it crucial to take them and examine them. Similarly, there was no need to record in his report that he had asked for an additional 40‑50 soldiers to help search the site. 129. A car leaving Diyarbakır and going in the direction of the place where the bodies were found would have gone through at least two check points; one was the check point just outside Diyarbakır and manned by police officers from the Diyarbakır Police and the second was outside the Kağıtlı gendarme station, manned by the soldiers under his command. As there were not very many cars passing along the road outside the station, each car and its passengers were searched thoroughly. Even police cars or ambulances were checked.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant is an organisational unit of the Roman Catholic Church with its head office in Prague. 5. On 27 April 2000 (according to the applicant) or 2 May 2000 (according to the Government), the applicant lodged an action with the Mělník District Court (okresní soud) against Mr H., seeking to establish its ownership of plots of land with a church and belfry in Obříství. 6. On 11 October 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request of 23 August 2000 for an interim measure to secure the applicant’s access to and use of the property in question. This decision was delivered to the applicant’s lawyer and the defendant on 16 and 26 October 2000 respectively. On the same date, the defendant received a copy of the applicant’s action. 7. On 6 November 2000 the applicant’s appeal of 23 October 2000 against the decision on interim measures was delivered to the defendant, who sent his observations on 22 November 2000. 8. On 5 December 2000 the case-file was submitted to the Prague Regional Court (krajský soud), which on 12 December 2000 quashed the lower court’s decision and remitted the case to it for further consideration. It ordered the District Court to hear the parties to the proceedings before deciding on the request. 9. In January 2001 the Regional Court’s decision was received by the parties to the proceedings. 10. On 8 March 2001 the District Court fixed a hearing for 23 April 2001, at which it granted the requested interim measure. 11. Upon the defendant’s appeal of 15 May 2001, received by the applicant’s lawyer on 21 May 2001 and after the submission of the case-file to the Regional Court on 5 June 2001, the latter upheld the District Court’s decision on 14 June 2001. This decision entered into force on 31 July 2001. 12. On 12 March 2003 the District Court held a hearing, at which it dismissed the applicant’s action. 13. On 27 June 2003 the Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal of 2 April 2003, supplemented on 10 April 2003, quashed the District Court’s judgment and remitted the case to it for further consideration. 14. On 21 January 2005 the applicant’s received the District Court’s decision of 6 January 2005 appointing an expert in the field of church law. 15. It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1950, and lives in Hatay. 7. On 10 February 1994 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody by officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation, namely the TKEP/L (Turkey’s Communist Labour Party/Leninist). 8. On 24 February 1994 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The same day the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. 9. In an indictment dated 17 May 1994, the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and eleven other defendants before the Istanbul State Security Court (“the court”), accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities that undermine the constitutional order of the State. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 10. By a letter of 24 February 1995, the court requested from the First and Second Divisions of the State Security Court that the two case files pending before them be transmitted to it for examination, as some of the defendants had been put on trial for similar charges before these courts. 11. On 22 May 1995 the court decided that the criminal proceedings pending before the Konya State Security Court should also be joined to the present case as the applicant was being prosecuted for similar charges before that court. 12. At the hearings of 27 July 1995, 8 March, 20 May, 19 July, 23 September and 20 November 1996, the court obtained testimonies from the complainants, who claimed to be the victims of the acts of the defendants and eye witnesses to the events. 13. On 27 January 1997 the court joined the case with that pending before the First Division of the Istanbul State Security Court. In the other case, the applicant was also accused of being a member of the same organisation and the activities in which he was allegedly involved were similar. 14. On 11 April 1997 the Court of Cassation set aside the decision to join the two criminal proceedings. 15. By a letter of 10 September 1997, the court requested that the case files pending before the Fifth and the Second Divisions of the State Security Court be sent to it for examination, as the facts were allegedly the same as in the present case. 16. At the hearings of 19 November 1997 and 26 January 1998, the complainants of a robbery which had taken place in the Ağaoğlu and Aslantaş Commercial Centres were heard. The court noted that some of the witnesses had already made statements before the Seventh Division of the Istanbul Assize Court in relation to the incident at the Aslantaş Commercial Centre. Accordingly, it issued a letter to the Seventh Division of the Assize Court asking the latter to transfer the case file to it. 17. During the hearings held on 17 June and 5 August 1998, the court noted that the information requested from the Assize Court had not been received. It therefore repeated the earlier request. 18. On 7 October 1998 the Assize Court informed the State Security Court that it was unable to provide that information, as no defendant’s name had been mentioned in the letter of request. 19. On 22 February 1999 the prosecutor submitted his observations on the case, in which he sought the applicant’s conviction and sentence pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 20. On 25 October 1999 the applicant read out his forty-page written observations and submitted them to the court. At the same hearing the applicant’s lawyer requested an extension to prepare the defence. 21. At the hearing of 29 May 2000, the court decided to ask the Fourth Division of the Istanbul Assize Court about the outcome of criminal proceedings brought against the police by one of the co-accused, concerning an allegation of ill-treatment. By a letter dated 19 June 2000, the Assize Court stated that the case was still pending before the Court of Cassation. 22. In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicant made numerous requests for his release pending trial. The State Security Court dismissed these requests at each of the twenty-two hearings held between 17 August 1994 and 16 August 2000. In ordering the applicant’s continued detention each time, it relied on “the nature of the offences charged, the state of evidence and the content of the case file”. 23. In particular, during the hearing held on 20 November 2000, the applicant’s lawyer reminded the court that his client had been kept in detention for six years and ten months, contrary to the provisions of domestic law as well as the Court’s established case-law. On the same day, due to the change in the representation for the prosecution, the case file was deposited with the new prosecutor for the submission of his observations. 24. On 27 November 2000 the applicant’s lawyer applied to the Fifth Division of the State Security Court, asking it to set aside the decision on the applicant’s continuing detention. In his petition he stated that his client had been detained for a long period despite the absence of any danger that he would destroy the evidence, which had all been collected in the case file, or that he would abscond. The Fifth Division rejected the request on similar grounds (paragraph 22 in fine above), namely “having regard to the content of the case file and the state of evidence”. 25. On 28 February 2001 the court noted an unrelated letter sent by the First Division of the Assize Court, when it realised that the latest letter concerning the prosecution of the police officers had been mistakenly addressed to the First Division instead of the Fourth. 26. On 4 June 2001 the applicant was released pending trial. 27. Of the eight hearings held between 22 October 2001 and 5 May 2003, five were adjourned at the request of the defence. 28. On 3 September 2003 the court noted that the Fourth Division of the Assize Court had sent the wrong judgment, instead of the one requested. 29. On 23 February 2004, due to a further change in the representation of the prosecution, the proceedings were postponed to 3 May 2004. Subsequently, the case file was deposited with the new public prosecutor for the submission of his observations on the case. 30. On 8 December 2004 the court decided to adjourn its deliberations on the judgment until after 1 April 2005, when the new Criminal Code was due to come into force, having regard to the fact that the latter’s provisions could affect the nature of the offence and the punishment to be imposed on the applicant.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Rab. 5. On 10 June 1996 a company J. (“the company”) instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in the Rijeka Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Rijeci) seeking restitution of business premises in the applicant's possession and payment of rent. 6. On 7 August 1996 the applicant filed a counterclaim against the company seeking payment of a certain amount of money on the basis of his investments in the business premises. 7. The two cases were joined. 8. On 2 October 1996 the Rijeka Commercial Court decided in the company's favour. At the same time it dismissed the applicant's claim as inadmissible because the company had meanwhile gone bankrupt and the applicant failed to report his claim in bankruptcy. 9. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 11 February 1997 the High Commercial Court (Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske) upheld the first instance judgment. 10. On 27 March 1997 the applicant filed a request for revision on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). 11. On 11 December 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request on its merits. That decision was not served on the applicant until 6 May 2002. 12. Meanwhile, on 22 March 2002 a new section 59 (a), which subsequently became section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act entered into force, introducing a domestic remedy for length of proceedings in form of a constitutional complaint. 13. In line with the new legislation, on 11 April 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the proceedings. 14. On 2 October 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint because the Supreme Court had meanwhile decided his case.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Novska, Croatia. 6. During the Homeland War, members of the Croatian Army had seized the applicant's vehicle. 7. On 24 January 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking compensation for his vehicle from the State. 8. On 3 June 1997 the court gave partial judgment awarding the applicant compensation. 9. Both the applicant and the State appealed. On 25 August 1998 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the judgment and remitted the case. 10. On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all actions for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed. 11. On 17 December 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation. On 12 December 2000 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against that decision. 12. On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”). 13. On 11 November 2003 the applicant's proceedings resumed pursuant to the above legislation. The proceedings are still pending.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Zagreb. 5. On 14 April 1992 the applicant's house in Vinkovci, Croatia was blown up by unknown perpetrators. 6. On 12 July 1993 the applicant, together with her husband, filed a civil action with the Vinkovci Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vinkovcima) against the State seeking damages in the amount of 847,671 Croatian kunas (HRK) for her destroyed property. She relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act. 7. The court held hearings on 15 December 1993, 5 January and 22 March 1994 and 6 February 1996. 8. On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending enactment of new legislation on the subject. 9. On 25 July 1996 the applicant's husband applied to the administrative authorities for reconstruction assistance in order to obtain financial means to reconstruct their destroyed house. On 9 August 1996 the competent administrative authority granted his request. The reconstruction was completed on 26 May 1997. The total amount the State spent on the reconstruction of the house amounted to HRK 234,040. 10. On 27 March 2002 the Vinkovci Municipal Court stayed the above mentioned civil proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment. 11. On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force. 12. Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 14 January 2004 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings and, on 19 February 2004, dismissed the applicant's action finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against that decision.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bludenz. 5. In May 2000 the Feldkirch Regional Court (Landesgericht) opened criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code. 6. On 23 November 2000 the Regional Court, after having held a trial, convicted the applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment suspended on probation. It found that, in 1997, he had performed homosexual acts with two adolescents. 7. Upon the applicant's appeal, the Innsbruck Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) requested the Constitutional Court (Verfassungs-gerichtshof) to review the constitutionality of Article 209. 8. On 29 November 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed this request (see paragraph 22 below). 9. On 20 December 2001 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal filed a new request for review of the constitutionality of Article 209. 10. On 21 June 2002 the Constitutional Court gave a judgment holding that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional (see paragraph 23 below). 11. The amendment repealing Article 209 entered into force on 14 August 2002. While, according to the transitional provisions, Article 209 remained applicable in all cases in which the judgment at first instance had already been given before the entry into force of the amendment, it could no longer be applied in the applicant's case since it had been the case in point (Anlaßfall) before the Constitutional Court. 12. On 17 July 2002 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal, noting that the Constitutional Court had repealed Article 209 as unconstitutional, acquitted the applicant. This decision was served on him on 12 August 2002. 13. On 20 September 2002 the Feldkirch Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for reimbursement of his defence costs holding that under Article 393a (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung) no right to compensation existed if the accused was not punishable on grounds which occurred after the indictment was filed. 14. On 12 November 2002 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal partly granted the applicant's appeal, awarding him reimbursement of a total amount of 1,839.38 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. It found that the Regional Court had wrongly applied Article 393a (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant's case had been the case in point before the Constitutional Court leading to the repeal of Article 209 of the Criminal Code. His case had to be treated as if Article 209 had never existed. Consequently, it could not be said that he was acquitted on grounds which occurred after the indictment. 15. The court found that the applicant's defence costs including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, in which the applicant, as an interested party (mitbeteiligte Partei), had made detailed submissions, had been necessarily incurred. However, the law provided that only a maximum amount of EUR 1,091 was to be reimbursed as contribution to the defence costs. In addition EUR 748,38 were awarded for cash expenses.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

7. The applicants were born in 1963 and 1951 respectively. They were shareholders in two limited liability companies. It appears that at least S.E. was also in a management position in those companies. Both companies were in the process of being wound up from 1991. 8. W., a lawyer working for the bank which was the main creditor of the companies, was appointed as the official receiver to control the assets of the companies. Having received a special auditor’s reports about the companies W., on 21 October 1992, requested the police to investigate whether offences had been committed in the companies before they went into liquidation. The police interview of the official receiver began on 9 December 1992 and continued in January 1993. S.E. was questioned by the police for the first time on 25 May 1993. That day he was also arrested and a large number of documents were seized from both the applicants. T.K. was questioned by the police on 27 May 1993. 9. On 12 September 1994 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) revoked the seizure of the documents, as requested by S.E., as the time-limit of four months had passed since they had been seized and no charges had been brought against the applicants during that time. The decision became a precedent (KKO 1994:83). 10. The applicants were questioned several times in the course of the investigations during the period from May 1993 until 1995. It appears that the police investigations concerning the two companies came to an end in November 1993 and April or May 1995 respectively. 11. S.E. petitioned the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman, who in her decision of 28 February 1997 took the view that the pre-trial investigations should have been speedier. 12. The applicants were charged with offences as dishonest debtors. Writs of summons were served upon S.E. on 1 November 1994 and on 11 May 1995 and upon T.K. on 8 May 1995. Three oral hearings were held in the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) on 16 February 1995, 11 May 1995 and 29 June 1995. S.E. was absent from the first hearing due to a lawful impediment. At the second hearing the complainants requested a deferral which was granted. 13. On 29 June 1995 the District Court ruled inadmissible the charges brought against the applicants, without considering their merits, on the grounds of their being in breach of procedural requirements. The District Court found that the complainants, i.e. the meeting of the debtors, had not requested that charges be brought against the applicants. The mere fact that the official receiver had made a request to that effect was not sufficient, as the practice at the time of the alleged offences required that the decision should be made by the meeting of the debtors. The District Court noted, however, that chapter 39, section 9 (3) of the Criminal Code (rikoslaki, strafflagen), which had entered into force after the commission of the alleged offences, allowed for the official receiver to request a prosecution. The District Court concluded that although the provision was of a procedural nature and as such applicable to offences committed prior to its entry into force, applying the provision in this case would lead to an unfavourable outcome for the applicants. Thus, the District Court decided not to apply the new provision, and accordingly, not to consider the merits of the charges. 14. In July 1995 the public prosecutor, the complainants and S.E. appealed. On 28 November 1996 the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) found that the official receiver had been entitled to request criminal proceedings against the applicants under chapter 39, section 9 (3) of the Criminal Code, as the application of that provision in the instant case neither affected the period of limitation nor subjected the applicants to a stricter criminal liability. The Court of Appeal revoked the District Court’s decision and remitted the case. 15. On 27 January 1997 the applicants requested leave to appeal. On 7 May 1997 the Supreme Court granted them leave to appeal and invited the observations of the other parties. On 29 October 1997 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ appeal for substantially the same reasons as those given by the Court of Appeal. The decision became a precedent (KKO 1997:171). 16. On 3 November 1997 the applicants lodged an application for an annulment. Further, they requested on 9 December 1997 that the Supreme Court postpone the consideration of the annulment until the European Court of Human Rights had given judgment and as the Supreme Court on 5 April 2001 had informed them that the case would be decided shortly, they requested again that the application be stayed. However, on 15 November 2001 they withdrew the application for an annulment. 17. Meanwhile, on 11 February 1998 the District Court informed the parties that the case would be restored to its case-list. It was, however, adjourned several times as there were settlement negotiations going on between the applicants and the complainants. The time-limit for submission of observations was extended until 31 August 1998 upon request of the public prosecutor. 18. On 21 October 1998 a contract was signed between the complainants and the applicants, agreeing that they had no claims, either civil or criminal, against each other on the basis of the events mentioned above. According to the Government, the parties reached an agreement on compensation, whereas the applicants denied that the agreement concerned any form of compensation. 19. On 14 January 1999 the public prosecutor informed the District Court that he wanted to withdraw all the charges against the applicants, finding that his right to bring charges had ceased to exist as the complainants had withdrawn their claims.[1] 20. However, at the oral hearing held on 8 February 1999 in the District Court S.E. requested notwithstanding the withdrawal that it be examined whether the complainants’ prosecution request had been specific enough for charges to be brought and whether the period of limitation on the right to bring charges had become time-barred. The public prosecutor noted that at least three witnesses had died since the police investigations, and that he might have withdrawn the charges in any event as the proceedings had already lasted an unreasonably long time. It was announced by T.K. and the complainants that the case had been settled as far as they were concerned. The District Court found on the same day that the public prosecutor could not withdraw the charges if there was an objection and that S.E. had the right to a decision in the matter. The case was adjourned until 15 March 1999 as far as S.E. was concerned. The charges against T.K. were removed from the docket and the decision was not appealed against. 21. On 15 March 1999 the District Court, having held an oral hearing, rejected one of the charges as time-barred and ruled the rest inadmissible, without considering their merits. In so far as the District Court refused to consider the merits, it found that the complainants had not particularised their allegations when reporting the alleged offences to the police in October 1992 or during the questioning of the official receiver in January 1993, and that the time-limit for requesting prosecution, as stipulated by the Decree Implementing the Criminal Code (rikoslain voimaanpanosta annettu asetus, förordningen om införande av strafflagen), had thus been exceeded. 22. The public prosecutor and S.E. appealed against the District Court’s decision not to consider part of the charges. The case became pending before the Court of Appeal in April 1999. On 15 August 2000 the Court of Appeal, noting that S.E. had a right to have the question of guilt examined and as part of that issue also whether the prosecution procedure had been in accordance with the law, found that the complainants had particularised their allegations sufficiently within the period of limitation, and therefore revoked the District Court’s decision to rule the charges inadmissible. Instead, the Court of Appeal removed the charges from the docket as the applicants and the complainants had reached a settlement. Chapter 39, section 2 of the Criminal Code, as in force until the end of 1990, provided that a debtor could not be convicted if he had satisfied his creditor. 23. On 16 October 2000 S.E. applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The case was still pending before the Supreme Court when the European Court of Human Rights decided to give notice of the application to the respondent State. On 21 January 2002 the Supreme Court refused S.E. leave to appeal.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

15. The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Silvan within the administrative jurisdiction of the province of Diyarbakır, in south-east Turkey. 16. The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place on or about 21 April 1992 and on or about 30 June 1992, are disputed between the parties. 17. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 18-32). The Government's submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 33-36). Documentary evidence submitted by the Government and by the applicant are summarised in Sections D (paragraphs 37-61) and E (62-67) respectively. 18. The applicant's son Ender Toğcu[1] was the manager of the Sento hotel and the Arzu club in Diyarbakır. He had no relations with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (the PKK) or any other similar organisations. 19. On an unspecified date, Ender's maternal cousin Mehmet Kartal was taken into custody in relation to a criminal case and when Ender's photograph was found on him, he apparently made a statement to the effect that he and Ender were partners in the alleged crime. The cousin was subsequently released without charge. 20. The applicant stated in the application form submitted to the Commission that, on 29 November 1994, Ender Toğcu's wife Güler was in Diyarbakır Hospital, giving birth. The applicant's wife was with her. At about 3 p.m. Ender Toğcu left his older brother Ali Toğcu to go to the hospital. However, Ender never arrived at the hospital and had not been seen since. 21. In reply to a query from the Court into details of the hospital records showing the date of birth, the applicant replied on 31 January 2000 with the correction that the woman who had been in hospital giving birth on the day of Ender's disappearance was not Ender's wife but the wife of his brother Ali. On the day in question Ender and Ali had had a meal together at a restaurant near their house before Ender had left for the hospital to visit Ali's wife. Although the applicant submitted that he would obtain hospital records and send them to the Court, he failed to do so. 22. In his memorial of 16 October 2001, the applicant submitted that on the day of his disappearance, his son Ender had been with his wife Güler, who was pregnant and had been taken to the maternity ward of the hospital as she was feeling unwell. Ender never returned from the hospital. The applicant also informed the Court that Ender had one child, born on 12 March 1993. 23. At about 10.30 p.m. on 29 November 1994, seven or eight plain‑clothes police officers came to the applicant's home in Diyarbakır and beat the applicant and his younger son. The police officers enquired about Ender's whereabouts. The applicant told them, although he knew that this was untrue, that Ender had left for Kayseri three days earlier. The police officers then told him that his son was in the hands of the police and that they would hand over his body in three days. 24. The police officers moved on to the house of Ali Toğcu, where they arrived at about midnight and conducted a search without finding anything. Ali told the police officers that he had not seen his brother Ender since 3 p.m. that day. The police officers took Ali to the applicant's house, where they told the applicant that there was a firearm in his house and ordered him to hand it over. Both the applicant and Ali denied the existence of any gun. After having conducted a conversation over the wireless, the police officers told the applicant and Ali that the firearm was in the woodshed of the applicant's house. The police officers told the applicant's wife that Ender had told them where he had hidden the gun. The police officers then found the firearm hidden in the woodshed, and left. 25. On 30 November 1994, Ali was apprehended by police in a café in Diyarbakır and taken to the Security Directorate. He was subsequently taken to the official detention centre of the Rapid Reaction Force[2] where he was detained for four to five hours, during which he was interrogated and tortured intensely. He was questioned about Ender's whereabouts. When he told the police officers that he did not know where his brother was, he was told that Ender had been apprehended and that a price-list of walkie-talkies and batteries had been found on him. Ali was also asked where Ender's rifle was. During his interrogation, Ali, despite having been told by the police officers that his brother Ender had “gone to the mountains”, could hear the screams of Ender. After having been interrogated and tortured for about four to five hours and believing that he was dead, the police officers left Ali on a dump in Ergani, about 50 kilometres from Diyarbakır. 26. After his release, Ali Toğcu made inquiries about Ender at the Çarşı Police Station, where he was told that his brother was being held by the police and that he would be released after interrogation. 27. On an unspecified date, Ali Toğcu made further inquiries about Ender with the Chief Commissioner at the Homicide Department, taking with him a photograph of his brother, a photocopy of his brother's identity card and the applicant's home telephone number. These inquiries had not yielded any results. 28. On an unspecified date, the applicant and Ali Toğcu were apprehended and detained for six days. The police accused them of helping and meeting with Ender, whom they alleged was in the mountains. They were both released after six days without having been brought before a court. 29. On another occasion, Ali Toğcu was approached by police officers who asked him for money in exchange for which Ender would not be killed. One police officer asked Ali for one billion Turkish Lira to be given to a third person. In return, Ender would be released. 30. The applicant and his family filed many petitions with the State of Emergency Governor, the City Governor and other authorities. None of these petitions were accepted. On 6 April 1995, the applicant's wife filed a petition with the office of the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the Diyarbakır Court”). On 7 April 1995, she was informed by the authorities that the name of Ender Toğcu did not appear in their records. 31. The applicant was heard by the Prosecutor for the first time on 19 July 1996. On 6 November 1996 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the disappearance (Takipsizlik Kararı). 32. The investigation was apparently reopened in October 1999. The applicant gave a second statement to the Diyarbakır Prosecutor and, for the first time, statements were taken from the spouses of the applicant and Ender. As the applicant and his wife did not speak any Turkish, their grandson Mehmet was present when their statements were taken. According to Mehmet, the official court interpreter distorted the statements given by the applicant and his wife. For example, although the applicant stated that he would recognise the police officers who came to the house, the interpreter translated this as “I don't know the people who took my son away”. After he objected to this, Mehmet was removed from the Prosecutor's office and he was not allowed to read the recorded statements. 33. On 30 November 1994, at about 12.30 a.m., the homes of the applicant and his son Ali Toğcu were searched pursuant to a request made on 29 November 1994 by the Commander of the Diyarbakır Gendarmerie to the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. The aim of the search was to find Ender Toğcu, who was suspected of involvement with the PKK. Police officers carrying out the search did not manage to find Ender Toğcu. However, a firearm and a charger with bullets were found in the applicant's house. As the applicant stated that it belonged to his nephew Mehmet Kartal, the police officers took the firearm and left the applicant's home without detaining anyone. 34. Neither Ali nor Ender Toğcu was taken into detention on 29 or 30 November 1994. The applicant and Ali were detained, however, on 4 July 1995 on suspicion of involvement in a terrorist organisation and released on 8 July 1995 on account of the lack of sufficient evidence. Ali Toğcu was arrested once again by police on 7 August 1997 and released on 8 August 1997, after having given a statement. 35. The applicant's wife submitted a petition to the Prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır Court. No other petitions were submitted to any Prosecutor. An investigation into the disappearance of Ender Toğcu was carried out by the Diyarbakır Prosecutor who, in the course of his investigation, checked the custody records of the detention facilities in Diyarbakır and its districts. In the absence of any evidence implicating any State agent in the disappearance, the Prosecutor decided on 6 November 1996 not to prosecute anyone. 36. The Diyarbakır Prosecutor instigated a second investigation at a later stage. In the course of this investigation, statements were taken from the applicant and his wife and also from Ender's wife. The Prosecutor further made attempts to take statements from the police officers who had searched the applicant's house on 29 November 1994. This second investigation was ongoing. 37. The following information appears from documents submitted by the Government. 38. On 29 November the deputy commander of the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarmerie Headquarters (hereinafter “the Gendarmerie Headquarters”) requested the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters to assist the personnel from the Gendarmerie Headquarters to apprehend “the persons who had been aiding and abetting the PKK in Diyarbakır”. 39. According to a report of “house search and confiscation”, a number of police and gendarme officers, acting on the above mentioned request, went to the applicant's house in Diyarbakır in the early hours of 30 November 1994. They were looking for the applicant's son Ender Toğcu whom they wanted to arrest. However, Ender was not at home. During the search conducted at the house, a 7.45 millimetre calibre pistol with its bullets were found in the attic and confiscated by the officers. The applicant told the officers that the pistol belonged to his nephew, Mehmet Kartal. 40. It appears from another report, drawn up and signed by the same officers, that after having searched the applicant's house they had gone to Mrs Sabahat Toğcu's house and unsuccessfully looked for Ender there. 41. Custody records which, according to the Government, were from Diyarbakır's Çarşı Police Station and the Anti-Terror Branch of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters, showed that neither Ender nor his brother Ali or their father Hüseyin – that is the applicant – were detained by the police on 28, 29 or 30 November 1994. 42. According to copies of the custody records of a number of police and gendarmerie stations in and around Diyarbakır, no member of the Toğcu family was arrested and detained in November 1994. 43. It appears from the custody records of the Silvan Central Gendarmerie Station that the applicant's nephew Mehmet Kartal was arrested on 22 November 1994 and released the next day (see paragraph 19 above). He was re-arrested on 8 December 1994 and an order for him to be remanded in custody was issued by the Diyarbakır Court on 21 December 1994. 44. On 4 July 1995 the applicant and his son Ali Toğcu were arrested at their homes by a number of police officers. As they could not be linked to any illegal organisation, they were released on the orders of the Prosecutor on 8 July 1995. 45. On 1 February 1996 Ramazan Sürücü, the chief of the Anti-Terror Branch of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters, sent a reply to a letter which had apparently been sent to him from the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters on 30 January 1996. In his letter Mr Sürücü referred to another letter sent by his office on 24 January 1996. He informed the Headquarters that Ender Toğcu had not been detained at the Anti-Terror Branch on 29 October 1994. Hüseyin Toğcu and Ali Toğcu had been arrested on 4 July 1995 and then released on 8 July 1995. 46. On 8 February 1996 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor replied to a letter sent to him by the Ministry of Justice's International Law and Foreign Relations Directorate (hereinafter “the Directorate”) on 22 January 1996, informing that Directorate that Hüseyin and Ali Toğcu had been detained on 4 July 1995 and released on 8 July 1995. 47. On 25 June 1996 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor asked the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court whether an investigation into the applicant's allegations concerning Ender Toğcu was in progress. 48. On 27 June 1996 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court replied to the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor that Ender Toğcu's name did not feature in the records of the Diyarbakır Court. 49. On 19 July 1996 a statement was taken from the applicant by the Diyarbakır Prosecutor. The applicant acknowledged that he had lodged an application with the European Commission of Human Rights and confirmed the accuracy of the contents of the statement he had given at the Human Rights Association (see paragraph 63 below). He recounted that on 29 November 1994 he and his sons, Ender and Ali, had been arrested outside his house by plain-clothes members of the Anti-Terror Branch of the Police Headquarters. Prior to his arrest, Ender had just returned from the hospital, where his pregnant wife had been giving birth. The reason for Ender's arrest was his suspected involvement with the PKK. The police officers arresting Ender had told the applicant to go and collect Ender's body in Fiskaya in three days' time. 50. The applicant further stated that he had been kept in detention for a week before being released. Ali had been detained twice; on the first occasion he had been detained for a week and on the second he had been detained for three days. The firearm had been handed over to the police officers who had come to his house to search for it. Nothing had been heard from Ender since he had been detained on 29 November 1994, and the enquiries made by the applicant with the Prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır Court and with the Anti-Terror Branch of the Police to obtain information about his son's fate had yielded no results. He told the Prosecutor that he wished to press charges against members of the Anti‑Terror Branch of the Police. 51. On 2 September 1996 a Prosecutor (no. 34973) sent a reply to a letter sent from the Diyarbakır Prosecutor of 26 August 1996. He enclosed copies of the documents contained in investigation file no. 1996/4211. 52. On 6 November 1996 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor decided not to prosecute anyone in connection with the applicant's allegations concerning the detention of his son. The Prosecutor based this decision on a letter sent to him on 16 October 1996 by the Anti-Terror Branch in which, according to the decision, that Branch had denied taking Ender Toğcu into custody. 53. Ali Toğcu was once more arrested at his house on 7 August 1997. 54. On 14 October 1999 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor sent letters to the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters and the Gendarmerie Headquarters, asking them to submit to his office the custody records of 29 November 1994. He also instructed them to search for Ender. 55. On 20 October 1999 the Gendarmerie Headquarters informed the Prosecutor that Ender had not been detained by them. Copies of their custody records, in which Ender's name did not feature, were forwarded to the Prosecutor with this letter. 56. On 1 November 1999 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor took a statement from the applicant. The applicant recounted that his son Ender had been living with him prior to his disappearance. On the evening of 29 November 1994, seven or eight plain-clothes police officers had come to his house and told him that Ender, who was in their hands, had told them that there was a firearm in the house. The applicant had replied that he did not know anything about a firearm. The officers had then found it in the attic of the house and left. He had not heard from Ender since that day. His other son Ali had been arrested and detained three to four days after the disappearance of Ender and had been ill-treated whilst in custody. Ali had also told him that he had heard a person's screams while he was in custody. Ali had thought it might be his brother Ender. Two months after the disappearance of Ender, the applicant and Ali had been arrested and detained once more, this time for a period of six days during which they had been questioned about the petition in which they had complained about police officers. 57. The applicant further submitted that his son Ender had not had any involvement with the PKK. The applicant had never been told by anyone to go and find the body of his son in Fiskaya (see paragraph 49 above). Finally, the applicant had asked the Prosecutor to find his son. 58. Also on 1 November 1999 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor took a statement from Güler Tuncel, the wife of Ender Toğcu. She stated that, while pregnant, she had become unwell on 29 November 1994 and her husband Ender had taken her to hospital. They had then returned home in the early afternoon and Ender had gone to his café at around 3 p.m. Ender would normally return home at 11 p.m. or midnight. At around midnight on 29 November 1994 seven or eight plain-clothes police officers had come to their house and had asked her and her father-in-law, the applicant, about a firearm. She knew that her husband owned a gun but she did not know where he kept it. The police officers then found it in the attic. She had not known that it was hidden there and, had they not been told by Ender where it was hidden, the police officers would not have been able to find it. She had not heard from Ender since that day. 59. Finally, on 1 November 1999 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor questioned Soliye Toğcu, the wife of the applicant. Mrs Toğcu stated that on 29 November 1994 she had gone to hospital together with her daughter-in-law Güler. Her son Ender had also been at the hospital for some time, but he was at home when she had returned. Ender had left at 3 p.m. to go to the café which he was running and had not returned. At around midnight the same day, seven or eight police officers had arrived at their house and asked for Ender. According to the officers, Ender had told them that there was a firearm in the house. The officers had found the gun and left. She had subsequently petitioned the Prosecutor about the disappearance of her son but had never been informed about his fate. 60. On 30 November 1999 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor reminded the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters and the Gendarmerie Headquarters of his requests of 14 October 1999 (see paragraph 54 above) and urged them to submit to his office copies of the custody ledgers and to search for Ender. 61. Also on 30 November 1999 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor sent a letter to the Anti-Terror Branch of the Police and summonsed the police officers who had gone to the applicant's house on 30 November 1994 (see paragraph 39 above) to his office. He also asked whether any action had been taken in relation to the firearm found in the applicant's house. The Prosecutor finally asked whether Ender, Ali and the applicant had been detained on 30 November 1994. He asked for copies of the custody records to be sent to his office. 62. On 6 April 1995 the applicant's wife submitted a petition to the Prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır Court (see paragraphs 30 and 35 above). She informed the Prosecutor that her son Ender Toğcu had been taken into custody by members of the security forces in Diyarbakır on 29 November 1994. Plain-clothes police officers who had raided her house on the evening of 29 November 1994 had told her that her son was in their hands. She had not heard from her son since that date. She asked the Prosecutor to give her information about her son. A handwritten note on this petition reads “his name was not found in the examination of our records”. 63. On 10 April 1995 the applicant made a written statement, addressed to a “Human Rights Project”. He submitted that at around 3 p.m. on 29 November 1994, his son Ender had left his brother Ali to go to the hospital where Ender's wife was giving birth. The applicant's wife, who was staying at the hospital to look after her daughter-in-law, had told the applicant that their son Ender had never arrived at the hospital. Ali had been arrested the following day by police officers from the Çarşı Police Station and been questioned for three days. On the third day he had been released on the Ergani Road. 64. In a letter forwarded to the Court on 31 January 2000, the applicant's son Ali Toğcu submitted that on 30 November 1994 he had been arrested by police officers and been taken to the Security Directorate, from where he had been taken to the Rapid Reaction Force. While at the Rapid Reaction Force, Ali had been questioned about his brother Ender and been told by police officers that Ender had gone to the mountains to join the PKK. While in custody, Ali had heard the screams of his brother Ender. Ali had been severely tortured and, believing that he was dead, the police officers had left him at a dump near Ergani. Following that incident, he had been detained a total of five times and on each of these occasions he had been accused of meeting with his brother Ender, whom, the police officers insisted, had joined the PKK. 65. The applicant forwarded to the Court a letter which he had dictated on 14 September 2001. In this letter the applicant submitted that there were no eye-witnesses to the abduction of his son Ender. No one at Ender's workplace had witnessed his arrest. He himself had not witnessed it either. He had been arrested, together with his other son Ali, one day in the summer and detained for six days. He had been asked why he had complained about the police officers and he had replied that his son had been detained by police officers and, for that reason, he had applied to the Prosecutor and to the Human Rights Association. He had then been told by police officers that his son had not been in their hands but that he had gone to the mountains. 66. In a letter, drawn up by Ali Toğcu's son Mehmet Toğcu on 18 September 2001, Mehmet Toğcu submitted that he had accompanied his grandparents – that is the applicant and his wife – and the wife of his uncle Ender (see paragraph 32 above) to the Prosecutor's office and had acted as the interpreter for his grandparents who did not speak any Turkish. His aunt Güler – Ender's wife – could speak Turkish. When he had begun translating word by word what his grandfather was saying, the Prosecutor had interrupted him and had asked another person working at the courthouse to take over the interpretation. However, this person had distorted his grandfather's words and, when Mehmet had objected, he had been removed from the office. He had later wanted to see the statements taken from his grandparents but his request had been refused by the Prosecutor. 67. In a letter dated 13 October 2001, Mrs Sabahat Toğcu (see paragraph 40 above) submitted that on the day of the incident she had gone to the hospital, where the wife of her brother-in-law was giving birth. Afterwards she had gone to the house of her brother-in-law Ali Toğcu. At 3 a.m. the following morning, a number of police officers had come to the house and told the people present that Ender had a large number of weapons in the house of a certain person named Yavuz. She and Ali had then accompanied the police officers to her house where, because she had forgotten the keys, the police officers had broken the door and had entered, and searched the house. Nothing had been found.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1955 and lives in Diyarbakır. 10. The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place on 20 February 1994, are disputed by the parties. 11. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 12-18). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 19-21). Documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 22-67). 12. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application the applicant and her family were living in the Sesveren hamlet of Karaorman village, located within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of Kulp, near Diyarbakır, south-east Turkey. 13. On 20 February 1994 approximately 200 soldiers from the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters came to the applicant’s hamlet and forced the villagers out of their houses. The villagers were herded together into the village square and the soldiers began to burn the villagers’ houses. 14. One of the soldiers then read out a list of names of six male villagers: Halit Akdeniz (35 years old), İrfan Akdeniz (18 years old), Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi (35 years old), Ziya Çiçek (22 years old), Faik Akdeniz (35 years old), and finally the applicant’s son Mehdi Akdeniz (22 years old) (hereinafter “the six persons”). The six persons seemed to have been identified by a masked man who was with the gendarme officers. The soldiers then beat up the six persons; the applicant’s son was the subject of the worst treatment. The six persons were then taken away, out of sight of the villagers. 15. The soldiers stayed in the village for approximately two hours and then walked with the group of six persons to another hamlet, approximately 1.5 kilometres away, where they got into waiting vehicles and drove away. 16. Eye-witnesses, who were held in detention together with the applicant’s son, subsequently informed the applicant that Mehdi Akdeniz had been held at Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters for five days. He had been tortured whilst being detained and according to the eye-witnesses, he had received the worst treatment of the six persons. 17. Eye-witnesses confirmed that in Silvan, where he was held for one week before being taken to Diyarbakır, he was also in a very poor condition. 18. The applicant has heard nothing further about the whereabouts or fate of her son since that time. She has brought several applications, both orally and in writing, to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the Diyarbakır Court”) and tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain information about her son. 19. No operation was carried out in the Kulp-Sesveren area on 20 February 1994 and, according to the custody records, neither the applicant’s son nor any of the other five persons mentioned were taken into custody or detained. 20. Between 1992 and 1993 the Sesveren hamlet was attacked by members of the PKK and the inhabitants of the hamlet fled from their homes because of intimidation by the PKK. 21. On 11 May 1994 the applicant was informed by the Diyarbakır Court that, according to the custody records, Mehmet Şen (sic.) had not been taken into custody. 22. The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties. 23. According to a record of arrest, drawn up on 28 February 1994 and signed by three gendarme officers and four gendarme soldiers from the Kulp gendarmerie, five of the six persons, namely, Halit Akdeniz, M. Şirin Allahverdi, Ziya Çiçek, Faik Akdeniz and İrfan Akdeniz were arrested in an operation carried out by the gendarmerie. The reason for the operation was the fact that the gendarmerie had been informed, by reliable sources, that these persons had been aiding and abetting the PKK. The report further states that the five men had various injuries on their bodies obtained as a result of their attempts at escape and also of the use of force. 24. On unspecified dates these five persons were questioned by a gendarme commander. All but Faik Akdeniz denied ever having been members of the PKK. Faik Akdeniz stated that he had been a member briefly. All five men stated that Karaorman village had often been visited by PKK members who forced the villagers to give them food. 25. On 8 March 1994 the five men were questioned by a judge at the Diyarbakır Court. The judge then ordered the release of four of them. Faik Akdeniz’s detention on remand was ordered by the judge. 26. The applicant, in a petition she submitted to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court on 11 May 1994, informed the Prosecutor that her son had been detained by members of the security forces on 20 February 1994 in her hamlet of Sesveren. She further stated that she had not heard from him since that date and that she was concerned for his life. She asked to be informed about her son’s fate. 27. According to a handwritten note, written by the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court on the applicant’s above mentioned petition of 11 May 1994, the applicant’s son was not recorded in custody records. 28. On 29 December 1994 the Ministry of Justice’s International Law and Foreign Relations Directorate (hereinafter “the Directorate”) sent a letter to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court and informed him about the application introduced with the Commission by the applicant. The Prosecutor was requested to question the applicant in relation to her complaints and to open an investigation into her allegations. 29. In his letter of 30 December 1994 the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court requested the Prosecutor in the town of Kulp to take the steps requested in the letter of the Directorate. 30. The commander of the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters was requested on 6 January 1995 by the Kulp Prosecutor to summon the applicant, as well as the five persons who had allegedly been detained together with the applicant’s son (see paragraph 14 above), to the prosecutor’s office. The Prosecutor also asked for a certain Cevdet Yılmaz and one Reşat Pamuk, both of whom were apparently living in the applicant’s village, to be summoned. 31. According to a report, which was drawn up on 17 March 1995 by three gendarme soldiers from the Sivrice gendarme station – located near the applicant’s village of Karaorman – and which was submitted to the Kulp Prosecutor, the persons referred to in the Kulp Prosecutor’s letter of 6 January 1995 had left the village for an unknown destination because of terrorist incidents. This report was subsequently sent to the Prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır Court. 32. On 26 July 1995 the Kulp Prosecutor sent a letter, this time to the commander of the Kulp Gendarme Brigade, and asked for the applicant and the other seven persons mentioned above to be summoned to his office. 33. According to a report, drawn up on 27 August 1995 by two gendarme soldiers and sent to the Kulp Prosecutor, the persons referred to in the Kulp Prosecutor’s letter of 26 July 1995 had left the village for an unknown destination three years previously because of terrorist incidents. 34. Similar correspondence between the Prosecutors and the gendarmerie setting out the former’s unsuccessful attempts to find the applicant and the other seven persons continued until June 1996, when Halit Akdeniz, one of the six persons who was allegedly detained at the same time as the applicant’s son, was located. 35. In a statement taken by the Kulp Prosecutor on 13 June 1996, Halit Akdeniz stated that a large number of soldiers had come to the village in February 1994 and gathered the villagers outside the village. They then set fire to the houses in the village. He, his son İrfan, the applicant’s son Mehdi, and the other three persons had been singled out by the soldiers and ill-treated in the village. They had then been taken to the Sivrice gendarme station where they had stayed that evening. The following morning they had been taken to the Kulp Commando Brigade where they had been detained for four days during which they were blindfolded, beaten up and questioned. At the end of the four days they had been brought to the Kulp Central gendarme Station where the applicant’s son Mehdi had been separated from the rest of them and he had not been seen again. They had continued to be detained for another 15 days and at the end of their detention all but Faik Akdeniz had been released. 36. Also on 13 June 1996 the Kulp Prosecutor questioned İrfan Akdeniz who confirmed the version of events as set out by his father above. He also added that Mehdi Akdeniz had been beaten up more severely than the rest of them. 37. On 20 June 1996 the Kulp Prosecutor took a statement from Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi, another one of the six persons allegedly detained together with the applicant’s son. Mr Allahverdi, who gave a remarkably similar statement to that of Halit and İrfan Akdeniz, added that the applicant’s son Mehdi Akdeniz had been identified by the itirafçı[1] who had came to the village with the soldiers in February 1994. 38. On 2 August 1996 Cevdet Yılmaz (see paragraph 30 above) was found in a prison in Elazığ. He refused to go to the Prosecutor’s office to make a statement on the ground that he was protesting against the Turkish courts. 39. The Kulp Prosecutor took a statement from the applicant on 15 August 1996. In her statement the applicant confirmed her account of events as set out above (see paragraphs 13 to 18 above). She finally asked the Prosecutor for information about her son’s fate. 40. On 19 August 1996 the statements taken by the Kulp Prosecutor from Halit Akdeniz, İrfan Akdeniz and Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi were forwarded to the Prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır Court. The Kulp Prosecutor further stated that his efforts to find Faik Akdeniz and Ziya Çiçek would continue. 41. Faik Akdeniz was questioned on 16 September 1996 by the Kulp Prosecutor. Mr Akdeniz also gave a remarkably similar statement to those made by Halit Akdeniz, İrfan Akdeniz, Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi and the applicant. 42. On 5 December 1996 the Kulp Prosecutor sent a letter to the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters and asked whether an operation had been conducted in Karaorman village in February 1994. 43. On 27 December 1996 the deputy commander of the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters replied to the Kulp Prosecutor in writing, stating that according to the records at the Headquarters, no operation had been conducted in Karaorman village or in Sesveren hamlet in February 1994. 44. Another statement was taken from the applicant on 12 May 1997 by the Kulp Prosecutor. The applicant confirmed, once more, her allegations and added that she had made an application to the Commission. 45. On 26 May 1997 the Kulp Prosecutor informed the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court that he had taken another statement from the applicant and that she still had not heard from her son. He further informed him that his efforts to find Cevdet Yılmaz, Ziya Çiçek and Reşat Pamuk, who had allegedly seen Mehdi Akdeniz in the custody of gendarmes, would continue. 46. The applicant was questioned on 21 July 1997, this time by the Prosecutor in the town of Silvan. She confirmed her allegations. 47. On 15 December 1997 the applicant was questioned once more by the Kulp Prosecutor. She repeated her allegations and added that she had nothing to add to her previous statements. 48. On that same day the Kulp Prosecutor also took a statement from Ziya Çiçek, the fifth person who had allegedly been detained together with the applicant’s son. Mr Çiçek confirmed the version of events given by the other four persons who claimed to have been detained with the applicant’s son. 49. The Kulp Prosecutor informed the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court on 16 December 1997 that he had taken yet another statement from the applicant and that he had found out from her that her son was still missing. 50. On 14 January 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor asked the Kulp and Silvan District Gendarme Headquarters, the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarme Headquarters and also the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters to send to his office copies of custody records showing the names of persons who had been taken into custody between 20 February 1994 and 10 January 1995 at their respective Headquarters. 51. On 24 January 1998 the commander of the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters forwarded to the Kulp Prosecutor’s office the names of those persons detained between 20 February 1994 and 10 January 1995. According to this letter, Halit Akdeniz, Ziya Çiçek, Mehmet Allahverdi, İrfan Akdeniz and Faik Akdeniz had been taken into custody on 28 February 1994 on suspicion of collaborating with the PKK. No information was provided in the column showing dates of release. 52. On 27 January 1998 the Directorate asked the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court for information about the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son. 53. The Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court was informed on 2 February 1998 by the Kulp Prosecutor that the statements taken from Halit Akdeniz, İrfan Akdeniz, Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi, Faik Akdeniz and Ziya Çiçek corroborated the allegations of the applicant. His efforts to obtain information from the gendarme as to whether the applicant’s son had indeed been detained by them were still continuing. The applicant’s son was still missing. 54. On 16 February 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor took a statement from Reşat Pamuk. Mr Pamuk stated that he used to live in the village of Yayık, near the town of Kulp. He and a number of his friends had been taken into detention by soldiers in the town of Silvan during the month of Ramadan in 1994. During his time in detention he had not seen Mehdi Akdeniz, the applicant’s son; in any event, he did not know who Mehdi Akdeniz was. 55. In a reply of 24 February 1998 to the Kulp Prosecutor’s letter of 14 January 1998, the chief of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters stated that Mehdi Akdeniz had not been detained by the police. 56. Also on 24 February 1998 the Directorate asked the Prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır Court to verify the accuracy of the contents of the statements given by the persons who claimed to have been detained together with the applicant’s son. This letter was forwarded to the Kulp Prosecutor the same day. 57. On 25 February 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor drew the attention of the commander of the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters to the fact that the release dates of the five persons detained on 28 February 1998 did not appear in the form he had received (see paragraph 51 above). The Prosecutor asked the commander to inform his office as to what action had been taken in relation to these persons. It appears that the gendarme commander subsequently complied with this request. According to the custody records of the Kulp Central Gendarme Station, Halit Akdeniz, Ziya Çiçek, Mehmet Allahverdi, İrfan Akdeniz and Faik Akdeniz had been detained there from 8 p.m. on 28 February 1994 until 9 a.m. on 5 March 1994 when they had been transferred to the Diyarbakır Court. 58. According to a set of custody records, showing the names of those detained at the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarme Headquarters between 24 February 1994 and 21 March 1994, the five men had been detained there on 5 March 1994 until their release was ordered by the Diyarbakır Court on 8 March 1994. 59. On 16 March 1998 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court forwarded to the Directorate a number of documents concerning the criminal proceedings which had been brought against İrfan Akdeniz, Mehmet Allahverdi and Faik Akdeniz following their detention in February 1994 (see paragraph 23 above). According to these documents, the three persons had been tried and acquitted of the offence of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation. 60. On 25 March 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor once again asked the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters for the names of those detained in Karaorman village since 20 February 1994. 61. On 11 April 1998 the commander of the Sivrice Gendarme Station stated in a report that no operation had been conducted in Karaorman village on 20 February 1994 by soldiers from his station. 62. Mehmet Nuri Sansar, the headman (muhtar) of the Karaorman village at the time of the alleged events, was questioned by the Kulp Prosecutor on 15 April 1998. Mr Sansar stated that on 20 February 1994 he had been in the Karaorman village mosque praying, when two soldiers had come in and asked those present to leave the mosque. Mr Sansar and the villagers in the mosque had complied with this order and left the mosque. Mr Sansar had then seen that the village had been surrounded by soldiers and that the villagers had been gathered outside the village. The commander of the soldiers had called Mr Sansar over and told him that food supplies had been brought to the Karaorman village by vehicles and that, from the village, they had been taken by mules to the PKK in the mountains. The commander asked Mr Sansar for the identity of the villagers who had carried the foodstuff to the PKK. When Mr Sansar replied that he did not know, the soldiers had taken him away and beaten him. Among the soldiers there had also been an itirafçı, whose face was covered. The itirafçı had not spoken a word but pointed to the six persons. All six persons had been taken away and all but Mehdi Akdeniz had been released some time later. 63. Cevdet Yılmaz (see paragraphs 30 and 38 above) was questioned by a Prosecutor on 29 April 1998. Mr Yılmaz stated that he used to live in Yayık village, near Sesveren hamlet where Mehdi Akdeniz used to live. He further stated that in February 1994 he had been arrested and taken to a detention centre in Silvan where he had seen Mehdi Akdeniz. However, unlike all other detainees, Mehdi had not subsequently been brought before the judge at the Diyarbakır Court. 64. On 22 May 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor asked his opposite number in the town of Silvan to enquire with the Gendarme Headquarters in the latter’s town to verify whether, as alleged by a number of eye-witnesses, Mehdi Akdeniz had ever been detained there. 65. On 22 May 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor also asked the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarme Headquarters whether an operation had been carried out in Karaorman village where, according to the allegations, Mehdi Akdeniz was arrested by soldiers. 66. On 13 June 1998 the commander of the Silvan District Gendarme Headquarters informed the Silvan Prosecutor that, according to the custody records, Mehdi Akdeniz had not been detained at the Headquarters in February 1994. 67. On 29 June 1998 the deputy commander of the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarme Headquarters replied to the Kulp Prosecutor’s letter of 22 May 1998 and stated that no operation had been carried out in the region of Karaorman village in February 1994.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Pusté Uľany. 5. In 1991 the applicant sustained an injury at work as a result of which she has been handicapped. 6. On 8 January 1992 she sought compensation from her former employer before the Galanta District Court. The applicant also submitted an expert opinion. 7. In the course of 1992 and 1993 the District Court held 12 hearings. 8. On 8 April 1994 the District Court decided to obtain a second expert opinion. The defendant challenged the decision ordering him to pay an advance on expert’s fees. On 31 August 1994 the appellate court determined that issue. 9. On 22 September 1994 the District Court decided to obtain an opinion from a different expert. On 1 December 1994 and on 9 March 1995 the court urged the expert to submit the opinion. 10. On 11 July 1995 the case was assigned to a different judge. 11. Between 28 November 1995 and 12 October 1999 the District Court requested the expert five times to submit the opinion or to return the file to it. The letter of 12 October 1999 was returned to the court with a remark indicating that the addressee had died. It was later established that the expert had died in December 1995. 12. Between 26 October 1999 and 3 May 2000 the District Court unsuccessfully attempted to locate and obtain the case file which had been sent to the expert. On 16 June 2000 it requested the parties to submit all relevant documents to it as the file had been lost with the expert. The court reiterated its request on 10 August 2000 and, as regards the applicant, also on 7 September 2000. 13. In the meantime, on 31 March 1999, bankruptcy proceedings were brought against the defendant. 14. On 17 August 2000 the administrator in bankruptcy informed the District Court that he did not possess the documents which the court had requested. The administrator asked the District Court to stay the proceedings due to the defendant’s bankruptcy. 15. On 20 September 2000 the applicant informed the District Court that she possessed no further documents relating to the case. 16. On 22 March 2001 the Galanta District Court stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings against the defendant company. 17. On 8 September 2003 and on 5 December 2003 the District Court requested the Bratislava Regional Court to submit to it the latter’s decision of 9 July 2003 under which the bankruptcy proceedings had been discontinued. In the meantime, on 27 October 2003, the defendant company had been deleted from the companies register whereby it had ceased to exist. 18. On 29 December 2003 the Galanta District Court received the above Bratislava Regional Court’s decision of 9 July 2003. On 19 January 2004 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in the applicant’s action of 8 January 1992 on the ground that the defendant had ceased to exist without any legal successor. The decision became final on 7 February 2004.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

5. On 9 January 1997 the applicant gave birth to a girl. She stated to the authorities that the father of the child was a Yugoslav national living in Switzerland. 6. On 18 April 1997 the Humenné District Court heard the applicant on the issue of the paternity of her child. 7. On 22 December 1997 the Prešov District Court appointed the Snina District Office as guardian to the child for the purpose of bringing paternity proceedings on her behalf and representing her in such proceedings. The decision stated that it had been taken as the applicant had not filed a paternity action. The District Office received the decision on 23 December 1997, but it did not bring paternity proceedings. On 3 June 1999 the Prešov Regional Office admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that the Snina District Office by its failure to file an action had delayed the case. 8. On 17 August 1998 paternity proceedings were instituted, at the applicant’s request, before the Prešov District Court. On 17 September 1998 the applicant paid the court fee. 9. On 25 January 1999 the Prešov District Court heard the applicant and decided to transfer the case to the Humenné District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. The file was submitted to the latter court on 8 March 1999. 12. On 1 December 2000 the District Court ordered an official translation of the relevant documents as it was necessary to seek the assistance of Swiss authorities. The request for assistance was sent to the competent Swiss court on 21 January 2001. 13. The District Court received the reply from the Swiss court on 26 March 2001. According to it, the defendant had denied the paternity of the applicant’s child. He declared himself ready to undergo a DNA test. The defendant had also explained that he had been granted asylum in Switzerland and that he could not travel abroad. 14. On 23 May 2001 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant maintained her claim. On the same day the District Court appointed an expert in genetics. On 9 July 2001 the expert informed the applicant that he had not yet made a blood analysis of her daughter as the District Court had failed to pay an advance on his costs. The letter further stated that the expert had informed the District Court how to obtain a blood sample from the alleged father in Switzerland. The District Court sent the relevant request to the Swiss court on 29 June 2001. 15. On 31 January 2002 the expert informed the District Court that he had not yet received the blood sample from his Swiss counter-part. On 6 December 2002 the District Court informed the applicant that the Swiss authorities had not yet obtained a blood sample from the alleged father of the child. 16. After having made an inquiry from the expert on 11 February 2003, the District Court again requested the Swiss authorities for assistance on 13 March 2003. In a reply delivered on 14 April 2003 the competent Swiss court informed the Humenné District Court that the files relating to its request had already been sent to it. The Swiss court enclosed copies of those documents to its reply. It was later established that the original mail from the Swiss court had been lost prior to its delivery. 17. On 18 June 2003 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 10 September 2003. It unsuccessfully attempted to have the defendant summoned. On 10 September 2003 the case was adjourned as the defendant’s whereabouts were unknown. 18. On 16 September 2003 the Humenné District Court again requested the competent Swiss court for assistance in establishing the defendant’s whereabouts and in obtaining a blood sample from him. It further authorised the expert to proceed with the analysis of samples from the applicant and the child. 19. On 27 October 2003 the District Court received information about the new address of the defendant. 20. On 9 December 2003 the District Court again asked the Swiss court for assistance in obtaining a blood sample as well as further information about the defendant’s situation. 22. On 6 July 2004 the District Court received a reply from the Swiss court. It stated that the Swiss court had heard the defendant on 15 March 2004 who had agreed to an analysis of his blood. However, the defendant subsequently had not complied with repeated requests to this effect and had failed to appear for a sample to be taken from him. Under Swiss law the defendant could not be obliged to submit a blood sample without his consent. According to the letter, the Swiss court could take no further action in that respect. The Humenné District Court obtained a translation of the above reply on 31 August 2004. 24. On 25 September 2002 the applicant complained about the length of the paternity proceedings before the Constitutional Court. 25. On 2 July 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. The decision stated that the complaint concerned the proceedings before the Humenné District Court. The Constitutional Court found undue delays in the proceedings between November 1999 and November 2000. However, after that period the District Court had proceeded with the case in an appropriate manner. In particular, it had sent several requests to a court in Switzerland on 29 January 2001, 19 June 2001, 12 June 2002 and on 13 March 2003. It had further ordered an expert opinion, sent a request for a blood sample to be obtained from the defendant and had the documentary evidence translated. In addition, it had encountered difficulties resulting from the loss of files abroad and the fact that summonses could not be served on the defendant. 26. The Constitutional Court concluded that the overall length of the proceedings could not be imputed to the District Court as its proceeding with the case had depended on co-operation with the Swiss authorities.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

10. The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1931. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, he lived in the town of Kulp, located within the administrative jurisdiction of the province of Diyarbakır, in south-east Turkey. 11. The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place on 13 June 1995, are disputed by the parties. 12. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (see paragraphs 13-33). The Government's submissions concerning the events are summarised in Section C below (see paragraphs 34-41). The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D below (see paragraphs 42-74). 13. In 1995 the applicant's son, Kadri Ateş, lived in Diyarbakır where he worked for Zahit Trade, a business which sold foodstuffs wholesale to small businesses and security and military establishments in the region. 14. At about 6 a.m. on 13 June 1995 Kadri Ateş, together with his colleague Burhan Afşin, left Diyarbakır to go to the town of Kulp to sell foodstuffs. They used a small lorry owned by Zahit Trade. They were accompanied by Kadri's father-in-law Vehbi Demir, his paternal uncle Kemal Ateş and a man called Memduh Çetin. At Seyrantepe, Kemal Ateş disembarked from the vehicle due to overcrowding and continued his journey in another vehicle. 15. The lorry came off the Diyarbakır-Bingöl highway at the Lice turn-off and headed towards the town of Lice. At about 7.40 a.m., one kilometre before the Lice-Kulp fork, the vehicle slowed to a halt as a result of a police minibus blocking the width of the road. Thereafter, four police officers surrounded the van with firearms and proceeded to carry out an identity check of all the occupants. This resulted in Memduh Çetin and Burhan Afşin being ordered out of the lorry and taken by a police minibus to the police checkpoint at the entrance to the Lice district. The other occupants were told to follow in the lorry. 16. The four men were told to wait at the police checkpoint at Lice without receiving an explanation for their detention. Kemal Ateş, who had by then arrived at the police point in the other vehicle, sought an explanation but was stopped by the police. After about 10-15 minutes a grey-coloured Renault saloon car, with the registration number 06 MEH, arrived. Four plain-clothed police officers with pistols got out. One of the police officers was a 29-30 year old, of medium height, wearing a grey jumper and holding a walkie-talkie. This police officer proceeded to ask who owned the lorry and what names each of the men were known by in the village from where they came. Kadri Ateş replied “Gebooğulları” and Vehbi Demir replied “Galevan”. 17. Thereafter the plain-clothes police officers informed the men that they were to be taken back to Diyarbakır, to the Financial Branch of the Police, as there was a problem concerning some cheques. Vehbi Demir and Memduh Çetin said to the police that they had simply boarded the lorry as passengers and had nothing to do with any cheques. However, they, together with Burhan Afşin, were ordered to drive the lorry back to Diyarbakır, in front of the Renault. Kadri Ateş was placed into the back of the Renault, in between two police officers. 18. The vehicles stopped outside the Regional Traffic Directorate, located at the entrance to Diyarbakır, where the four men were told to remain in their respective vehicles. Three officers then entered the Directorate. About 20 minutes later two more police cars arrived with three men in each vehicle, who proceeded to talk with the police who had detained the men in the Lice District. The two cars were similar to the Renault. 19. At this point Kadri Ateş, who was still in the Renault, indicated to Vehbi Demir and Memduh Çetin that they were in danger by biting his lip. As a result, Memduh became distressed and panicked, saying “They are going to kill me”. He was given permission to go to the toilet, which led to all four men being placed in the hallway of the Directorate. 20. After 10-15 minutes two plain-clothes police officers from the two cars that had arrived later entered the hall, carrying firearms. They asked “Which of you are Kadri Ateş and Vehbi Demir?” Both men identified themselves and were ordered to go with the officers to one of the cars which had arrived later. A tall man next to the officer with the walkie-talkie ordered them to turn to face the car whereupon they were blindfolded by a heavily-built officer who then pushed them into the back of the car and proceeded to sit next to them. 21. The officer with the walkie-talkie sat in the front of the vehicle, and enquired as to whether they knew what offences they had committed to which Vehbi replied, “No”. Kadri said, “It was the Mekap[1] shoes.” The police officer then enquired where they were taking the shoes. Kadri replied, “There were fifty pairs. I was taking them to the mountains”. The officer then proceeded to punch Kadri, stating, “Son of a whore, are there still such macho men left in the south-east?” 22. The car then set off. The officer informed them that they were being taken to the military and added “Do you know what the military do ... you'll find out when you get there.” He then instructed the driver to turn onto the Ergani road. The car eventually stopped outside the Riot Police Directorate where they were taken to a cell in which Vehbi, still blindfolded, was handcuffed to the door. He heard the officer order Kadri to strip. 23. Thereafter, Vehbi heard Kadri's screams and cries which continued for two to four hours. Vehbi was then ordered to strip, after which he was tortured for about an hour: he had his testicles squeezed, was hosed down with cold water and electric shocks were applied to him. He was then interrogated by a “Commander” in front of approximately 15 people. 24. Gürgün Can, Ateş's cousin and business partner, was also placed in custody. On the second day, Vehbi was placed in another cell next to an inmate whom he correctly suspected was Can. His blindfold was removed. Thereafter both men were subjected to noise being played on a tape machine at an unbearably high level. 25. On the 15th day of custody Vehbi was taken for interrogation and again subjected to beatings, during which he continued to deny all accusations. His interrogators then stated, “You're very lucky. Haven't you heard? We have killed Kadri. He kicked the bucket. If they hadn't killed him, we'd have murdered you”. Thereafter they informed him, “Your time is up... You have two choices. Either you will go to join Kadri, or we'll send you to prison and you'll kill ten people with the poison we will give you”. They further added, “Look, there are teams here. If we surrender you to them, they will kill you like Kadri”. 26. Vehbi was taken to an unknown place. At the entrance his interrogators told him, “Don't you know where this is? Look, there are teams here. If we surrender you to them, they will kill you like Kadri”. Vehbi continued to assert his innocence, whereupon his interrogator said, “I'm telling you, you only have two choices. Either I will surrender you to the teams, or you'll agree to go to the prison.” At that point Vehbi was taken inside and placed in a cell where he was told, “If your friend had not died, we'd have killed you now. It appears you are lucky.” 27. On the 16th day of custody Vehbi was given a typed statement to sign. The next evening he was taken to the Dağkapı health clinic where he was threatened and told not to make any allegations, but the doctor, in any event, did not examine him. 28. On 30 June 1995 15 people were brought before the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the Diyarbakır Court”); Vehbi, Memduh Çetin and Gürgün Can were among them. The first two were released by the Prosecutor whereas Can was released by a judge. Burhan Afşin was remanded in custody. 29. On 20 June 1995, that is seven days after Kadri Ateş was detained, the applicant applied to the Diyarbakır Court to obtain information concerning the detention of his son. He was informed that his son was not in custody and was referred to the Diyarbakır Security Directorate where he received the same information. 30. The applicant was subsequently informed by the Prosecutor in the town of Lice that Kadri Ateş had died in a clash between security forces and the PKK. The applicant had the body of his son exhumed from the Lice cemetery and buried him in his home town of Kulp. 31. An official Incident and Apprehension Report stated that the four men had been observed at around 7.45 p.m. in an Isuzu lorry, with the registration number 34 ERS 82, travelling along the Bingöl road. They had subsequently been detained for suspected participation in terrorist activities, namely the dropping off of supplies to PKK members at the Aksu petrol station between the Lice turn-off and Duru Gendarmerie Station, at about 9 p.m. 32. The report stated that Vehbi Demir, Memduh Çetin and Burhan Afşin were taken to Diyarbakır for interrogation, while Kadri Ateş was handed over by the Gendarmerie to the Security Special Action Teams to help, voluntarily, set up an ambush at the said petrol station. The report further stated that at about 11.45 p.m. five armed PKK members came to the petrol station and an armed clash ensued in which Kadri Ateş was killed. 33. The applicant is convinced that Kadri Ateş did not die in a clash but was killed in custody under torture. Vehbi Demir witnessed Kadri being taken into custody by the police and heard him being tortured. 34. On 13 June 1995 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate received information to the effect that a small lorry with the registration number 34 ERS 82 would be carrying logistical equipment to PKK terrorists and that the terrorists would meet with Kadri Ateş, Memduh Çetin, Vehbi Demir and Burhan Afşin, who would be travelling in the lorry. 35. Necessary security measures were taken and at about 7.35 p.m. the lorry was stopped at the Lice-Kulp fork and Kadri Ateş was questioned. He stated that he was going to deliver the equipment to the terrorists at a location close to the Aksu petrol station near the Lice-Kulp fork at approximately 9 p.m. Thereafter he was arrested in order to be taken to the meeting point. The others were taken to the Diyarbakır Security Directorate for questioning. 36. Upon reaching the meeting point, the necessary security measures were taken and at approximately 11.45 p.m. five terrorists arrived to collect the equipment from Kadri Ateş. At that point the police asked the terrorists to surrender. However, instead of surrendering, the terrorists opened fire at the security forces and the firing continued for approximately half an hour. Kadri Ateş made an attempt to escape from the security forces but was shot and killed in the crossfire. Two terrorists were also shot and killed but the others managed to escape. 37. A search was carried out at the scene by soldiers from the Lice District Gendarmerie Headquarters. During the search, two Kalashnikov rifles with serial numbers 1971 PO4 and 1977 SS 239119, 81 cartridges and eight chargers were found. Various logistical supplies were also found in the lorry which belonged to Kadri Ateş and these supplies were handed over to the competent judicial authorities. 38. On 14 June 1995 the office of the Lice Prosecutor carried out autopsies on the bodies of the three deceased persons. 39. On 21 June 1995 the applicant went to the Prosecutor's office in Lice where he was shown the photographs of his son. In these photographs, the body of the applicant's son was seen lying next to the bodies of the two terrorists. The applicant formally identified his son. 40. On 30 June 1995 Fetih Aktaş, Cengiz Yılmaz, Burhan Afşin, Gürgün Can and Vehbi Demir were questioned by the Diyarbakır Court Prosecutor, who on 5 July 1995 filed an indictment with that court in which the five men were accused of the offence of membership of a terrorist organisation. 41. On 16 November 1995 the Diyarbakır Court acquitted the five men for a lack of sufficient evidence. 42. The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties. 43. According to the custody ledgers, Vehbi Demir was arrested at midday, and Gürgün Can at 3 p.m., on 13 June 1995. 44. A handwritten incident report was drawn up and signed by six special police team members and two gendarmes at 5 a.m. on 14 June 1995. There is no information in the document to establish the identities of these officers. According to the report, Kadri Ateş, Vehbi Demir, Memduh Çetin and Burhan Afşin were arrested on 13 June 1995 during an investigation into the actions of the PKK. Kadri Ateş reportedly told the arresting officers that he was planning to meet with members of the PKK at 9 p.m. the same day at the Aksu petrol station and deliver to them the supplies which he had in the back of his lorry (registration number 34 ERS 82). Kadri Ateş was also reported to have told the arresting officers that he was willing to accompany them to the petrol station where they could set up an ambush in order to apprehend the PKK members. The other three arrested persons were then transferred to Diyarbakır for questioning. The police and gendarme officers, together with Kadri Ateş, went to the petrol station where they took up their positions – Kadri Ateş at the place where, according to his agreement with the PKK members, he was supposed to wait, and the police hiding in the vicinity. 45. Five PKK members arrived at the petrol station at 11.45 p.m. When asked by the police officers to surrender, the PKK members opened fire and an armed clash ensued. At that point police officers made an attempt to approach Kadri Ateş in order to take him away from the scene. However, he started running towards the PKK members and was shot in the crossfire. The clash continued for approximately 30 minutes. Bodies of two of the terrorists and their weapons were found at the scene after the clash had ended. The body of Kadri Ateş, who had been shot a number of times, was also lying next to those of the two PKK members. 46. On the same day Mr Özcan Küçüköz, the Prosecutor of the Lice district, in whose jurisdiction the killings had taken place, visited the Gendarme Commando Division in Lice where the three bodies had been taken. He was accompanied by Dr Ömer Varol. The Prosecutor and the doctor examined the bodies and drew up a report in which they recorded their findings. Each of the three bodies was given a number because their identities were not known. (The body of Kadri Ateş was number three.) The bodies were also photographed. 47. Rigor mortis had set in in bodies number one and two but post mortem hypostasis was not observed. As regards body number three, neither rigor mortis nor post mortem hypostasis was observed. 48. Examination of body number one revealed that the right frontal region and the parietal region of the brain were completely destroyed, whereas the occipital region was partly destroyed. There was also an injury below the right knee, caused by a rocket missile. The body bore no marks of blows. 49. In the course of the examination of body number two, two bullet entry wounds on the chest, a number of bullet entry wounds in the throat and one bullet entry wound on the left foot, as well as the corresponding exit wounds were observed. The body bore no marks of blows. The report further states that this person was wearing “terrorist clothing”. 50. Finally, the examination of body number three revealed a bullet entry wound in the occipital region of the brain and a corresponding exit wound on the chin; a bullet entry wound four millimetres below the left collar bone and a corresponding exit wound below the collar bone; an injury on the right shoulder, measuring 10 x 10 centimetres, caused by a firearm, and finally two shrapnel injuries below the right collar bone. 51. The doctor concluded that the cause of death for bodies number one and three was the destruction of vital organs, and for body number two acute blood loss caused by the firearm injuries. He added that the cause of the deaths was so obvious as to leave no doubt in his mind and therefore there was no reason to carry out classical autopsies. 52. The Prosecutor, after having examined the bodies, issued burial licenses and instructed a municipal worker to arrange for the burial of the bodies of the “three terrorists who had no relatives”. 53. Also on 14 June 1995 the Lice Prosecutor sent a letter to the commander of the Lice Gendarme Headquarters and asked for copies to be forwarded to him of the documents pertaining to the investigation which the commander had carried out into the incident. It further appears from this letter that the gendarme commander had informed the Prosecutor by telephone earlier in the day about the “killing of three terrorists whose identities are not known”. 54. On 21 June 1995 the applicant went to the office of the Prosecutor in Lice where he was shown the photographs of the three bodies. He identified body number three as that of his son Kadri Ateş. He also asked for permission to bury his son in his home village. 55. On the same day the Lice Prosecutor had the Lice municipality exhume the body of Kadri Ateş. It was handed over to the applicant. 56. On 23 June 1995 Captain Şahap Yaralı, the commander of the Lice Gendarme Headquarters, sent a letter to the Lice Prosecutor, in reply to the latter's letter of 14 June 1995 (see paragraph 53 above). Mr Yaralı wrote that at 6 p.m. on 13 June 1995 his station had been informed by telephone that a number of logistical supplies would be delivered to members of the PKK at the Aksu petrol station in a lorry. No information had been given about the make or the registration number of the lorry. An operation had been planned by the security forces in the area. At 11.45 p.m. a number of PKK members had arrived at the Aksu petrol station in an Isuzu lorry, with the registration number 34 ERS 82. The terrorists, when asked to stop by members of the security forces, had responded by opening fire. A short armed clash had ensued and, during the search which had been carried out after the clash, the bodies of three terrorists had been found. Two Kalashnikov rifles and ammunition belonging to the terrorists had also been retrieved at the scene. The supplies in the lorry had later been destroyed by the soldiers. 57. Captain Yaralı annexed to his letter, inter alia, an on-site incident report and a number of documents which had apparently been found in the lorry. The Government did not make these documents available to either the Commission or the Court. Captain Yaralı further forwarded to the Prosecutor the Kalashnikov rifles and the ammunition retrieved at the site of the armed clash. 58. On 26 June 1995 the Lice Prosecutor drew up records of confiscation in which the items sent to his office by Captain Yaralı were listed. These items included order forms, consignment ledgers and bills belonging to Zahit Trade (item no. 1995/8), the Isuzu lorry with the registration number 34 ERS 82 (item no. 1995/9), and the rifles and ammunition found at the site of the operation (item no. 1995/7). 59. On 30 June 1995 a statement was taken from Vehbi Demir by the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court. Mr Demir denied being a member of the PKK but added that Kadri Ateş had had connections with them. He also stated that on 13 June 1995 Kadri Ateş had been giving him a lift in his lorry to the town of Kulp when the vehicle had been stopped by members of the security forces near the town of Lice. He, Kadri Ateş, Burhan Afşin and Memduh Çetin had been arrested on the spot. 60. On 5 July 1995 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing Fetih Aktaş, Cengiz Yılmaz, Burhan Afşin, Gürgün Can and Vehbi Demir of membership of a terrorist organisation, namely the PKK. In this indictment, Kadri Ateş was referred to as the “terrorist who was arrested on 13 June 1995 together with Gürgün Can by members of the security forces, and who was later killed at the Aksu petrol station while trying to run away from the security forces during the armed clash between the terrorists and the security forces”. Burhan Afşin, Gürgün Can and Vehbi Demir were accused of attempting to take 54 pairs of Mekap shoes to terrorists on 13 June 1995 in a lorry with the registration number 34 ERS 92, before being arrested by members of the security forces. The indictment also made reference to a number of statements taken from Burhan Afşin, Gürgün Can and Vehbi Demir. With the exception of the statement taken from Vehbi Demir, these statements have not been made available to the Convention bodies. 61. On 18 July 1995 the Lice Prosecutor decided that he lacked jurisdiction to prosecute “the three terrorists killed in the operation on 13 June 1995”, and sent the file to the Prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır Court. According to this decision, a number of terrorists had arrived at the Aksu petrol station at 11.45 p.m. in an Isuzu lorry, with the registration number 34 ERS 92, and three of the terrorists had been killed. The body of one of the deceased had subsequently been identified as that of Kadri Ateş. 62. On 11 August 1995 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court instructed the Lice Prosecutor, the Lice gendarme headquarters, the Diyarbakır police headquarters and, finally, the Diyarbakır gendarme headquarters to search for the perpetrators of the incident “during which three of the terrorists were killed in the armed clash between the terrorists and the security forces”. The Prosecutor asked to be kept informed every three months of any possible developments in the investigation. 63. On 20 September 1995 the commander of the Duru gendarme station, near which the incident had taken place, sent a report to the Lice Gendarme Headquarters. According to this report, a group of terrorists had approached the lorry to take delivery of logistical supplies. When asked by members of the security forces to surrender, the terrorists had opened fire. After the incident three of the terrorists had been found dead. The report finally stated that it had not yet been possible to establish the identities of the “perpetrators of the incident”. This report was forwarded to the Prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır Court on 26 September 1995 by the commander of the Lice Gendarme Headquarters. In his covering letter, the commander referred to a letter apparently sent to him by the Prosecutor on 15 September 1995. 64. On 16 November 1995 the Diyarbakır Court held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the five defendants had aided and abetted a terrorist organisation, and it ordered their acquittal. The court noted that the defendants had confessed, in statements taken from them by the police while they were in custody, to having committed the offence in question. The court noted that the defendants had later denied the contents of their earlier statements. Copies of the statements taken from the defendants during the criminal proceedings have not been made available to the Convention bodies. The Diyarbakır Court further ordered the return of the confiscated Isuzu lorry (registration number 34 ERS 82) to its owner because it had not been established that the lorry had been used in the commission of an offence. The decision became final on 23 November 1995. 65. On 27 January 1998 the judge at the Nizip Criminal Court of First Instance asked the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court to forward to him a copy of the report of the examination carried out on the body of Kadri Ateş (see paragraphs 46-52 above). The judge asked for this report to be sent to him “before the forthcoming hearing on 14 April 1998”. 66. On 6 May 1998 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court sent the requested report to the Nizip judge. 67. On 2 June 1998 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court repeated the above mentioned instructions to the Lice Prosecutor, the Lice gendarme headquarters, the Diyarbakır police headquarters and finally the Diyarbakır gendarme headquarters (see paragraph 62 above). 68. On the same day he also sent a letter to the Lice Prosecutor saying that neither the ownership of the Isuzu lorry nor the manner in which the terrorists had acquired and used it had yet been established. He further asked the Lice Prosecutor to carry out a ballistics examination of the rifles and the bullets, numbered as item no. 1995/7 (see paragraph 58 above). 69. On 3 September 1998 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court asked the Lice Prosecutor to forward to his office the confiscated items registered as nos. 1995/7-9 (see paragraph 58 above). 70. On 29 September 1999 the Diyarbakır branch of the Pensions' Directorate sent a letter to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court informing him of their intention to bring a civil action against those responsible for the killing of Kadri Ateş to claim compensation. The Prosecutor was asked to send to the Pensions' Directorate the documents pertaining to the investigation into the killing of Kadri Ateş. 71. On 7 October 1999 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court forwarded to the Pensions' Directorate the documents requested, and informed the latter that the perpetrators had not yet been arrested. The Prosecutor further stated that logistical supplies had been taken to the petrol station by terrorists who had refused to surrender to the security forces. 72. On 4 November 1999 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court drew the Lice Prosecutor's attention to the fact that the owner of the Isuzu lorry had still not been established (see paragraph 68 above). He also repeated his request of 3 September 1998 and urged the Lice Prosecutor to forward to his office the items registered as nos. 1995/7-9 (see paragraph 58 above). He finally repeated his instructions of 2 June 1998 to carry out ballistics examinations on the rifle and the ammunition. 73. Also on 4 November 1999 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court repeated his instructions to the Lice Prosecutor, the Lice gendarme headquarters, the Diyarbakır police headquarters and finally the Diyarbakır gendarme headquarters (see paragraph 62 above). The Prosecutor further instructed the investigating authorities to establish the identities of the three dead terrorists and “to apprehend them”. 74. The applicant submitted to the Court copies of statements taken from the applicant and also from Vehbi Demir by the applicant's Turkish lawyer. The statement taken from Vehbi Demir formed the basis of the applicant's submissions summarised in Section B above (see paragraphs 13-33).

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1951 and lives in Diyarbakır. 10. The facts surrounding the killing of the applicant’s brother, Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, are disputed by the parties. 11. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (see paragraphs 12-23). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (see paragraphs 24-28). Documentary evidence submitted by the Government is summarised in Part D (see paragraphs 29-46 below). 12. On 9 June 1994, the applicant’s brother, Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, gave a statement to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the Diyarbakır Court”). He stated that he had heard that a certain Ms Amber Yılmaz had fallen from the roof of a three-storey house in the course of a military operation conducted at about 9.30 p.m. on 8 June 1994. He had further heard that Ms Yılmaz’ husband, Fethi Yaşar, had been a PKK member and that Mr Yaşar was currently serving a 36 year prison sentence for PKK[1] membership. He finally stated that he was not aware of any links between Ms Yılmaz and the PKK (see paragraph 30 below). 13. After having given this statement, Abdulkadir was followed on a number of occasions. In November 1994 Aynur Çelikbilek, the wife of Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, was visited by two policemen who asked her questions about her husband’s whereabouts. 14. At about 11.00 a.m. on 14 December 1994, Abdulkadir went to the Esnaflar Café in the centre of Diyarbakır. About ten minutes after his arrival, a white Renault car with four plain-clothes policemen stopped in front of the café. It is common knowledge in south-east Turkey that this kind of car is used by plain-clothes police officers. Two policemen stayed in the car while the other two entered the café. The latter two policemen were the same as the ones who had previously questioned Aynur Çelikbilek about her husband’s whereabouts. It was obvious that the two persons were policemen, as they were armed. Only members of the security forces could have entered a café in Diyarbakır carrying firearms. When the applicant’s brother was leaving the café, the two policemen also left the café. Outside the café the two policemen took Abdulkadir by the arms and forced him into the waiting white Renault. This was seen by all the persons present in the café. The car left in the direction of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters. Two persons, who were present in the café when the plain-clothes police officers took Abdulkadir away, told the applicant at a later stage about this incident and added that the persons who had abducted his brother were certainly police officers. 15. On 15 December 1994, the applicant went to the Diyarbakır Branch of the Human Rights Association in order to inform them of the incident. He was advised to file a petition with the office of the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court. The applicant then went to the Diyarbakır Court to file a petition. However, the police at the door of the Court building told him that his brother’s name was not on their list. The applicant returned to the Diyarbakır Court several times in the course of the following days and unsuccessfully tried to obtain information about his brother. 16. At around 7.30 a.m. on 21 December 1994, three police officers came to the applicant’s home and told him that his brother had been wounded and admitted to the hospital. When the police officers took the applicant to their car, they told him that his brother’s body had been found outside the Mardinkapı cemetery in Diyarbakır. The applicant went with the police officers to the place where his brother’s body had been found. There, the police searched him. They took his petition which was addressed to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court from the pocket of his jacket. Despite his request, the police officers refused to give it back to him. The applicant is of the opinion that the police refused to return his petition in order to weaken any case he might bring against the Turkish authorities. 17. The body of the applicant’s brother was lying on top of a rubbish heap near the Mardinkapı cemetery. Marks of torture could be seen all over his body. It looked as if the skin on the soles of his feet had been pulled off with pincers. His arms, legs and head looked as if they had been skewered on a thick skewer. His whole body was black and blue and there were marks on his throat. 18. After the police had shown the applicant the body of his brother, they took him in their car to his brother’s house, where the police conducted a house search. During this search, the applicant heard on the police radio that the Prosecutor was about to go and see the body of his brother. The police interrupted their search in order to join the Prosecutor. They took the applicant with them. The Prosecutor did not put any questions to the applicant. The police recorded the location of the body and subsequently took the body to the State Hospital morgue. The applicant was also taken to the morgue in a police car. On the way to the morgue, a police officer in the car told the applicant that all the villagers of Tepecik would die on the streets in the same manner. 19. In the morgue, some other police officers told the applicant that village guards had burned the village of Tepecik and that these same village guards had probably killed his brother. The applicant replied that he did not believe that village guards had killed his brother and added that, if village guards had killed his brother, they must have been helped by the police. The police officers replied that Leyla, the daughter of the applicant’s deceased brother, was of the opinion that the police had killed her father. When the applicant was asked whether he shared Leyla’s opinion, he said that he did. 20. In the morgue, an autopsy of the body of the applicant’s brother was conducted. The applicant asked the doctor about the marks around his brother’s throat. The doctor told him that something must have been passed around his brother’s neck after his death and that his body must have been dragged along by it. After the autopsy, the body was released for burial. 21. While the applicant was at the morgue, another group of police officers had returned to the house of the applicant’s brother in order to finish the house search. These policemen told Leyla that her father had told the police that he had a package, which was likely to contain a firearm, and they asked her to give this package to them. According to the applicant, this question indicated that the security forces had in fact apprehended his brother and that they had interrogated, tortured and killed him. On the same day, a statement was taken from the applicant at the Mardinkapı Police Station (see paragraph 37 below). 22. Some time before the events at issue, the applicant’s oldest son Fesih had joined the PKK. The applicant had managed to keep this a secret. However, ten days after the death of his brother, a person, who introduced himself as Cevat from the anti-terrorism branch of the police, came to the applicant’s home. Cevat told the applicant that his son had joined the PKK and asked the applicant to inform the security forces when his son came home. The applicant thus became convinced that his brother must have told the security forces about Fesih while he was under torture. 23. In June 1996 the applicant was himself abducted by State agents while walking in the street in Diyarbakır. He was put in a car and prevented from seeing and speaking. He was taken into the countryside where State agents wanted to shoot him but they then changed their minds and took the applicant to the rapid response force building in Diyarbakır where he was detained for a period of 31 days before being jailed for 14 months. While in detention he was threatened a number of times. The content of the threats was, “Do not follow your son’s or your brother’s way. If you do, we will kill you too”. These threats made the applicant all the more convinced that the Government were directly responsible for the abduction and killing of his brother. 24. At around 7.30 a.m. on 21 December 1994, the Mardin Kapı Police Station was informed by passers-by that a person was lying near the Mardinkapı cemetery in Diyarbakır. Acting on that information, police officers found a body, with its hands tied behind its back. It was lying on top of a rubbish heap near the cemetery. The police found an identity card on the body in the name of Abdulkadir Çelikbilek. 25. After being informed by the police, the Prosecutor in charge, Mr Mehmet Tiftikçi, and Dr Lokman Yavuz arrived at the scene. Footprints were found which could not be analysed as they were indistinguishable. There were no traces of any fight. Wheel traces were examined but were found to have been made after the discovery of the body. After an incident report had been compiled and a sketch map had been drawn up showing the location of the body, the corpse was taken to the morgue. 26. On the basis of the identity card found on the body, the victim’s family was contacted. The victim’s brother, Abdurrahman Çelikbilek, was brought to the morgue where he identified the body as that of his brother Abdulkadir. Subsequently an autopsy was carried out. 27. According to their statements taken on 21 December 1994, the applicant and the victim’s wife, Aynur, did not know who might have killed Abdulkadir. They stated that they had no enemies at all. The applicant further declared that, in so far as he knew, his brother had been detained for firearms trafficking after the coup d’Etat of 12 September 1980. The victim’s widow also stated that she wished to file a complaint against the person or persons who had killed her husband. Her criminal complaint was formally registered on 28 December 1994. 28. The Prosecutor opened an investigation under file no. 1994/9249, which is currently still pending. The Prosecutor has requested the police authorities to keep him informed on a regular basis about this investigation. 29. The following information appears from the documents submitted by the Government. 30. On 9 June 1994 a statement was taken from Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, the applicant’s brother, by the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court. Mr Çelikbilek stated that he had heard that a female by the name of Amber Yılmaz had fallen from the top of a three-storey building during a military operation which had taken place at 9.30 p.m. the previous day. He further stated that he had heard that Anbara’s husband was serving a 36-year prison sentence because of his PKK membership. As far as he knew, Anbara was not a PKK member. 31. At 7.45 a.m. on 21 December 1994, a deputy police chief and a police officer drew up an on-site report. According to this report, a number of persons had informed the police at 7.30 a.m. the same morning that they had seen a person lying on the side of the road, near the Mardinkapı cemetery. When the police arrived at the scene, they found the frozen body of a male, lying on its right side between the road and the wall of the cemetery. It was lying at an approximate distance of 150-200 metres from the entrance to the cemetery. Its hands had been tied at the back with the belt of the coat the deceased was wearing. According to the identity card found on the body, the deceased was Abdulkadir Çelikbilek. No evidence was found at the scene. 32. It was recorded in a sketch, drawn up by a police officer at 9 a.m. the same day to show the location of the body, that the cause of death was strangulation. 33. According to another on-site report drawn up the same day, the duty Prosecutor and a pathologist attended to the body of the person, “who had been strangled by a length of wire”. They observed a large number of footprints near the body. However, casts of these footprints were not made because there were too many of them and also because they were all mixed up. Similarly, no casts of the tyre marks observed near the body were made because it was concluded that these marks had been made by vehicles “which had nothing to do with the incident”. There was no sign of a struggle at the scene and there was also no evidence capable of providing clues about the perpetrator(s) of the killing. It was also noted in this report that the body had already been photographed by the police. The Prosecutor ordered the transfer of the body to the morgue at the Diyarbakır State Hospital for an autopsy. 34. According to the autopsy report, the body was taken to the hospital at around 9.30 a.m. the same morning. The applicant was already at the hospital when his brother’s body arrived. He identified his brother and stated that he had been missing for eight days, during which time the family had been unsuccessfully searching for him. He added that he did not know who might have killed his brother. 35. It was observed by the Prosecutor that rigor mortis had already set in. Also, a very large number of injuries and ecchymoses were observed on the face and on the trunk of the body. The doctor concluded that some of these injuries had been caused three days previously and some of them between six to twelve days previously. 36. According to a full autopsy carried out by the doctor, the cause of death was established as mechanical asphyxiation and it was concluded that the killing had been intentional. Taking into account the fact that rigor mortis had already set in, the doctor concluded that the death had occurred approximately 10-15 hours earlier. At the end of the autopsy, the body was photographed once more. The Prosecutor issued a burial licence and instructed the police officers to carry out a comprehensive investigation. 37. Also on 21 December 1994, at 3.30 p.m., a statement was taken from the applicant by the police chief at the Mardinkapı police station. The applicant stated that his brother had not returned to his house in the evening of 14 December 1994. The following day he had gone to the café which his brother used to frequent and asked the people there whether they had seen him. He was told by the people there that four persons had come into the café the previous day and gone straight up to Abdulkadir who had been sitting in the café. The four men and Abdulkadir had then left the café together and got into a white Renault estate car and driven away. The number plate of the car had not been “obvious”. The applicant stated that he did not know to what extent this sequence of events, which had been relayed to him by the people in the café, represented the truth. He also stated that he had tried to submit a petition to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court but that it was not accepted. He added that he did not suspect anyone in particular and that the family did not have any enemies. He finally stated that his brother had served a prison sentence after 1980 for an arms dealing offence. 38. On the same day, the police chief at the Mardinkapı police station took a statement from Aynur Çelikbilek, the widow of the applicant’s deceased brother Abdulkadir. Mrs Çelikbilek stated that her husband had left their family home at around 11 a.m. on 14 December 1994. When he had failed to return home in the evening, she had informed her brother-in-law, the applicant, and asked him to make the necessary enquiries in order to find her husband. Despite all their efforts, they had not been able to find her husband. She did not suspect anyone in particular and the family did not have any enemies. She had been told by the applicant that her husband had been taken away from the café in a white Renault car. She asked the Prosecutor to prosecute the persons who killed her husband. 39. Finally, on 21 December 1994 the police chief of the Mardinkapı police station forwarded to the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters his report in which he informed the latter about the body found in his area. He also appended to his report the two statements (see paragraph 37-38 above), the on-site reports and the sketch prepared the same morning (see paragraphs 31-33 above). 40. It appears that this report and its appendices were transferred to the Prosecutor’s office in Diyarbakır who opened an investigation into the killing the same day. The investigation was given the number 1994/9249. 41. On 23 December 1994 the Prosecutor instructed the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters to search for the perpetrator(s) of the killing. 42. On 6 January 1995 the Prosecutor repeated his instructions to the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters and asked to be kept informed every three months of any possible developments until the expiry of the statutory limitation period on 20 December 2014. The Prosecutor repeated his instructions to the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters on 1 January 1996, 28 February 1996 and 29 March 1996. 43. On 20 June 1996 the General Security Headquarters in Ankara sent a letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in an apparent response to a request made by the latter on 10 June 1996, pursuant to which the former had been asked to “forward to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the criminal records showing that the deceased brother of Abdurrahman Çelikbilek, who had made an application to the European Commission of Human Rights, had been involved in counterfeit and drugs dealing”. According to the letter sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abdulkadir Çelikbilek had been prosecuted in 1985 and 1986 for drug dealing and counterfeit offences and imprisoned. 44. On 1 December 1996 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor’s office was informed by the chief of the Mardinkapı police station that they had been searching for the perpetrators of the killing but had not yet managed to find them. 45. On 6 December 1996 a police officer reported to the Mardinkapı police station that he had searched for the perpetrators of the killing but could not find them. 46. The Prosecutor in Diyarbakır repeated his instructions to the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters on 6 December 1996, 6 January 1997, 13 August 1997 and, finally, on 15 March 1999.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1963 and lives in the United Kingdom. He is the brother of Hüseyin Koku, who was allegedly detained by the police on 20 October 1994 and whose body was found in a location outside the town of Pötürge, in south east Turkey on 26 April 1995. 10. The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which occurred between 20 October 1994 and 26 April 1995, are disputed by the parties. 11. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 12-41). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 42-58). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Sections D (paragraphs 59-87) and E (paragraphs 88-93) respectively. 12. The applicant’s brother, Hüseyin Koku, was born in the town of Elbistan in south-east Turkey, in 1958. In 1978 he married Fatma Koku (née Güzel) and by 1994 they had had six children, aged at that time between 6 and 15 years. 13. Hüseyin Koku and his family were active in local politics in Elbistan. Hüseyin became an active member of the pro-Kurdish Democracy Party (DEP). Following the closure of DEP by the Constitutional Court in 1994 and the arrest of the DEP Members of Parliament, the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP) was set up as a successor to DEP. Hüseyin Koku was one of the founding members of HADEP’s Elbistan district organisation and he became the chairman of HADEP’s Elbistan branch. 14. At the end of March 1994, or the beginning of April 1994, Hüseyin Koku was arrested, taken into custody and placed in detention on remand. He was accused of membership of, and helping and abetting, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). During his time in prison he was kept blindfolded, given electric shocks, subjected to falaka and to Palestinian hanging, hosed down with ice cold water, deprived of water and sleep and beaten with truncheons and iron bars. On 10 May 1994 he was released pending trial and was acquitted on 17 May 1994 due to a lack of evidence against him. 15. As a prominent local HADEP politician, Hüseyin Koku was the subject of harassment and intimidation by the police, and, in particular, by the Governor of Elbistan, Mr Şükrü Görücü. Mr Görücü threatened to kill him and alleged that he was a traitor to the State and further alleged that HADEP was a terrorist party. Mr Görücü also told Hüseyin Koku that “he would be removed quickly”. Hüseyin took this threat seriously and discussed it with other HADEP party officials. In an article published in the Özgür Ülke newspaper on 11 November 1994, the president of HADEP’s Kahramanmaraş branch was reported as saying that Hüseyin Koku had told him about the threats made by the local Governor in Elbistan. 16. At this time, Hüseyin Koku was also regularly followed by plain-clothes police officers and received anonymous telephone calls and threats. Another brother of Hüseyin’s and the applicant’s, Ali Koku, who worked closely with Hüseyin for HADEP, left Turkey because of political persecution and is currently living in the United Kingdom. 17. On or about 17 October 1994, a number of Kurds from the Cumhuriyet neighbourhood in Elbistan went to the local HADEP office and informed HADEP officials that plain-clothes security forces were painting red crosses on houses belonging to Kurdish families in the neighbourhood and were taking down house numbers and personal details of everyone in the area. This was of concern to the families because there had been a massacre of Alevi Kurds in Kahramanmaraş in the late 1970s, prior to which houses had been marked in a similar way. Hüseyin Koku made a statement about this to the Özgür Ülke newspaper. 18. On the following day, that is on 18 October 1994, Hüseyin Koku was summoned to the office of the Elbistan Mayor. The Mayor told him that, when they had previously arrested and imprisoned him, they had thought that he would not continue with his political activities in the area. He warned Hüseyin to resign from the party, close down the branch and leave the area. The Mayor also told him that if he listened to his advice, nothing would happen to him, but if he did not, the Mayor could not be responsible for what happened to him. The Mayor also told Hüseyin that he believed that Hüseyin and other HADEP members were assisting the PKK. Hüseyin replied that he was an elected representative and that he was not doing anything illegal. Hüseyin later reported this meeting to the administrative board members of the Elbistan branch of HADEP, including Mustafa Yeter, the local HADEP deputy chairman. 19. On 20 October 1994 Hüseyin was walking along Malatya Street in Elbistan between midday and 1 p.m., accompanied by his wife Fatma, when he was abducted by plain-clothes police officers carrying walkie-talkies, who then drove him away in a white Renault. The incident was witnessed by Fatma Koku, who was three to four metres away from Hüseyin at the time. The three men had introduced themselves as police officers and told Hüseyin that he would be going with them to the police station. 20. Another eye-witness to the abduction was Mr Bulut Yılmaz who was also active within the HADEP party in Elbistan at this time and who knew Hüseyin well. Mr Yılmaz recognised one of the plain-clothes police officers as one who had previously confiscated newspapers from his shop. 21. Later on 20 October 1994 Fatma Koku went to the HADEP office to tell her husband’s colleagues what had happened. 22. On 21 October 1994 Fatma Koku went to the Elbistan Police Headquarters, accompanied by Mustafa Yeter, to obtain information about her husband’s whereabouts. She was told that Hüseyin had not been taken into custody. She was then referred to the gendarmerie and subsequently to the Prosecutor’s office. Further inquiries were made by other members of the family, but no information was given to them. Fatma Koku also contacted the applicant to inform him that her husband – his brother – had been taken into custody on the previous day. 23. Ali Koku accompanied Fatma Koku to five or six police stations in Elbistan shortly after the abduction, but at each station they were told that Hüseyin Koku was not being detained there. 24. On 31 October 1994 a statement made by the Elbistan Governor, Şükru Görücü, was published in the local newspaper, Elbistanın Sesi. In this statement Mr Görücü denied that Hüseyin had been detained. 25. On 1 November 1994 Fatma Koku lodged a criminal complaint with the Elbistan Prosecutor about the disappearance of her husband. She provided a photograph of him and requested that the matter be investigated. Her petition was counter-signed by both the Prosecutor and the Security Director on 1 November 1994. 26. Also on 1 November 1994 Amnesty International published an ‘Urgent Action’ bulletin in respect of the disappearance of Hüseyin Koku. 27. On 3 November 1994 Fatma Koku and a number of HADEP executives petitioned the Elbistan Governor and requested him to carry out an investigation into Hüseyin’s disappearance. 28. One evening on or about 5 November 1994, a telephone call was made to Hüseyin Koku’s house which was answered by his 13-year old daughter, Özlem. During the telephone call, she was made to listen to the voice of her father whilst he was being tortured. Fatma Koku went immediately to the police station to complain about this telephone call, but the police were not interested and even made fun of her. A complaint about the call was lodged with the Prosecutor but, as far as the applicant was aware, no steps were taken by the Prosecutor to investigate the matter. About two and a half months later the Koku family were called to the Cumhuriyet neighbourhood police station in Elbistan where they were asked questions about the telephone call. Fatma Koku asked the police officers why they had not investigated her husband’s case before. One of the police officers replied to Fatma, “I knew Hüseyin well, but if I saw him now, I would not recognise him and neither would you”. She asked what he meant by this, but was sent away. 29. Fatma Koku and other family members went to meet with Şükrü Görücü, but he provided them with no information about Hüseyin Koku’s whereabouts and instead he insulted and threatened Fatma. 30. Following Hüseyin Koku’s abduction, Mustafa Yeter and Hasan Güner were made temporary leaders of HADEP’s Elbistan branch. They were later arrested and subjected to torture. Mr Yeter was threatened by the police not to talk about Hüseyin Koku’s case or to ask further questions about him or highlight the case abroad. He was told to resign or he would suffer the same fate as others. 31. On 24 April 1995 the Elbistan Prosecutor called Fatma Koku to his office and questioned her about her husband. He asked her whether Hüseyin could have been killed by the PKK. Fatma replied that her husband had never had any contact with the PKK and that there was no reason to believe that he had been abducted or killed by them. She said that her husband had previously been detained for alleged involvement with the PKK but had been released. She told the Prosecutor that neither she nor her husband’s family had ever had any problems with anyone. 32. On or about 27 April 1995 Fatma Koku was informed by the police that a body had been found near the town of Pötürge, in Malatya province, about 150 kilometres from Elbistan. Fatma and members of the Koku family went to Pötürge to see the decapitated body of Hüseyin Koku, which had been separated into three or four pieces. Most of the body was in a state of decomposition. 33. The Pötürge Prosecutor took statements from the Koku family members present. The security forces told the relatives that an autopsy would be carried out within 15 days and that the body would be released afterwards. 34. On 28 April 1995 Fatma Koku made several formal complaints to the Prosecutor, requesting that the murder of her husband be investigated and the necessary action be taken. 35. On 12 May 1995 Amnesty International published another ‘Urgent Action’ bulletin about Hüseyin Koku. 36. According to the autopsy report drawn up by the Forensic Medicine Directorate on 29 June 1995, there were two bullet wounds in the body, including one in the skull. 37. In July 1995 Fatma Koku was summoned to the police station and was asked about the petitions she had made in respect of her husband. While at the police station, she signed a document which she believed confirmed that she had submitted those petitions. 38. The Koku family have not been informed by the Prosecutor or any other official about any investigation being undertaken into her husband’s disappearance and murder. 39. On 23 August 1995 Hüseyin Koku’s body was released to the family’s lawyer. The body was buried the same day. Members of the security forces surrounded the area during the burial to prevent anyone other than close family from entering. 40. The applicant kept in contact with Mr Mehmet Kaya, another member of HADEP’s Elbistan branch, throughout this period. Mr Kaya told the applicant in 1996 that HADEP would be making a statement about the abduction and murder of his brother during the forthcoming annual general meeting of HADEP. Mr Kaya and two other local HADEP politicians were shot and killed on their way back from that annual general meeting. 41. The applicant took up the matter with various international organisations, including Amnesty International. He sought advice from his MEP, Mr Alf Lomas, who petitioned the European Parliament concerning Hüseyin Koku’s death. At this time, while making telephone calls to Turkey, the applicant would on several occasions be cut off and a Turkish-speaking voice would interrupt and threaten him. 42. The Court notes that the Government did not submit observations on the merits of the case (see paragraph 7 above). The following submissions are therefore taken from the observations submitted to the Commission on 15 May 1996 and from the additional observations submitted on 10 April 1997, i.e. prior to the application being declared admissible. 43. According to the Government, the authorities first became aware of the disappearance of Mr Hüseyin Koku on 3 November 1994, following the receipt of the petition submitted by Mrs Fatma Koku to the Kahramanmaraş Governor (see paragraph 91 below). Upon receipt of this petition, the Deputy Governor of Kahramanmaraş requested information from a number of authorities. 44. On 7 November 1994 the Elbistan Gendarme Headquarters sent a reply to the Deputy Governor. According to this reply, Hüseyin Koku had not been taken into the custody by the gendarmerie. 45. Also on 7 November 1994 the Police Headquarters informed the Deputy Governor that Hüseyin Koku had not been detained by them on or around 20 October 1994. 46. On 9 November 1994 the Kahramanmaraş Governor sent his report to the Ministry of the Interior, according to which a number of newspapers had carried reports of the alleged disappearance of Hüseyin Koku. On 23 October 1994 the Özgür Ülke newspaper had run the headline, “Director of HADEP’s Elbistan Branch Taken into Custody”. On 5 November 1994 the same newspaper had reported, “HADEP’s Elbistan Director Missing” and asked, “Was HADEP Director Killed?”. On 29 October 1994 the Nevroz newspaper had carried the headline, “Custody in Elbistan”. The accuracy of these articles had been assessed by the Kahramanmaraş security units and it had been established that Hüseyin Koku had not been taken into custody. He had, however, been arrested in 1982 and 1994 in connection with his alleged membership of outlawed organisations. On the basis of his past activities, the Kahramanmaraş Governor concluded in his report that it was possible that Hüseyin Koku had left the country through illegal means in order to join the PKK or to carry out activities on behalf of the PKK. 47. On 10 November 1994 a reply was given to the Secretary of State for Human Rights, who had apparently enquired on 2 November 1994 whether Hüseyin Koku had been treated at the Kahramanmaraş State Hospital for injuries sustained as a result of torture. The reply stated that between the dates of “20 November 1994 and 10 November 1994”, Hüseyin Koku had not requested any kind of treatment from this hospital and neither had he been brought there by the police. 48. On 11 November 1994 the chief of the Elbistan Police Headquarters sent a letter to the chief of the Kahramanmaraş Police Headquarters in which he wrote that he had questioned a number of persons who owned shops on Malatya Street where Hüseyin Koku had allegedly been taken away by the police. None of these persons had any information about such an incident. On the basis of this information and also on the basis of statements taken from Fatma Koku and Özlem Koku, the Elbistan police chief concluded that the allegation was one of many similar allegations made with the aim of dishonouring the security forces. 49. On 26 June 1995 the Chief Public Prosecutor of Elbistan sent to the Ministry of Justice’s International Law and Foreign Relations Directorate (hereinafter “the Directorate”) a letter in which reference was made to information sent to the Ministry previously. This letter informed the Directorate of the discovery of Hüseyin Koku’s body, together with three keys, on 26 April 1995; one of these keys had been for the door to the HADEP party office building, one for Hüseyin Koku’s house and the third one for a briefcase belonging to Hüseyin Koku. 50. In view of the contents of the briefcase, it had been established that Hüseyin Koku was conducting an extramarital affair with a certain C.E., who was a married woman. Adultery being an offence at the relevant time, C.E.’s husband had made a complaint to the authorities against Hüseyin Koku which had resulted in a decision not to prosecute, taken by the Elbistan Prosecutor on 20 December 1993. A number of letters found in the briefcase revealed the unfaithful acts of C.E. 51. The Chief Public Prosecutor further referred to a statement taken from Ahmet Güzel, Fatma Koku’s brother, by the Pötürge Prosecutor on 28 April 1995. According to this statement, Mehmet Çolak, the father of C.E., had told Mr Güzel on 22 October 1994 that, “... they fucked him up and got rid of him ...”. This had been understood to be a reference to Hüseyin Koku. 52. The Chief Public Prosecutor, taking into account the above information, concluded in his letter to the Directorate that the death of Hüseyin Koku was closely connected to his extra-marital affair with C.E. 53. According to the autopsy report of 26 June 1995, drawn up by the Forensic Medicine Directorate in Istanbul, there were two bullet wounds on the body and another one in the skull. 54. In a letter of 8 September 1995 the Elbistan Prosecutor informed the Directorate of all the facts and evidence collected until that date. 55. On 1 March 1996 the Elbistan Prosecutor sent another letter to the Directorate. Referring to the application lodged with the Commission, the Prosecutor informed the Directorate that the death of Hüseyin Koku would be explained when the preliminary investigation, which had been started by the Pötürge Prosecutor after the discovery of the body, was completed. 56. On 21 March 1996 the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the Directorate, informing the latter of the above mentioned correspondence. According to this letter, the allegations directed against State officials were illusory and had been made for propaganda purposes. 57. A letter drawn up on 22 March 1996 by the Ministry of Interior’s General Security Directorate referred to the above mentioned facts and reports and stated that the body of Hüseyin Koku had been buried by his family in Elbistan on 23 August 1995. 58. In their additional observations submitted to the Commission on 10 April 1997, the Government finally submitted that the Pötürge Prosecutor’s investigation into the death of Hüseyin Koku was still pending under file no. 1995/42 and that it would continue until the expiry of the statutory limitation period. 59. The following information appears from the documents submitted by the Government. 60. Pursuant to an interim decision adopted by the Malatya State Security Court (hereinafter “the Malatya Court”) on 10 May 1994, the applicant’s brother, Hüseyin Koku, was released from prison pending the outcome of criminal proceedings brought against him on account of his alleged PKK membership and on suspicion of aiding and abetting that organisation. 61. On 17 May 1994 the Prosecutor at the Malatya Court decided to discontinue the prosecution of the applicant’s brother on account of a lack of sufficient evidence to show his involvement in such offences. 62. At 1 p.m. on 26 April 1995 Emin Ziya Kekeç, a village guard, informed the commander of the Tepehan Gendarme Station of his discovery of a dismembered body in a location near Arguça hamlet of Sinan village, situated within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of Pötürge. The commander of the Tepehan Gendarme Station, together with a number of soldiers under his command, went to the location where the body had been found by Mr Kekeç. They were unable to find any bullets at the scene. 63. Mr Zeki Polat, the Prosecutor of the town of Pötürge, arrived at the scene shortly after the gendarmes and recorded his findings in a report. Mr Polat also instructed a photographer to photograph the body. The soil under and around the body parts was searched for bullets, spent bullet cases and for similar evidence, but none were found. 64. A wallet, found in the deceased’s jacket pocket, contained an electricity bill and a piece of scrap paper. Noting that these papers were very wet and risked being torn, a decision was taken to read them at a later stage when they were dry. A key for a door lock, a small, rusty flick-knife and two rusty telephone tokens were also found in the jacket pocket. 65. Dr Kağan Denge and Dr Naim Özata, who had arrived at the scene together with the Prosecutor, detailed their findings in a report drawn up during the examination of the body. According to this report, the body was badly decomposed and body parts and bones were lying around. The head was missing. Bones had been scattered around the body, possibly by wild animals. The examination carried out on the body parts did not reveal any firearm injuries. The internal organs had all disappeared. The doctors were unable to establish the cause of death and a decision was therefore taken to send the remains of the body to the Forensic Medicine Directorate in Istanbul. 66. On 27 April 1995 the Pötürge Prosecutor sent a fax message to his colleague in the town of Elbistan, asking the latter to help establish the identity of the body by checking the information found in the jacket pocket. 67. On 28 April 1995 Fatma Koku examined the clothes found on the body and concluded that they belonged to her husband Hüseyin Koku. The Pötürge Prosecutor then sent the remains of the body, together with the reports drawn up at the site where it had been found, to the Forensic Medicine Directorate and asked for the cause of death to be established. 68. Also on 28 April 1995, a report was drawn up by two gendarmes. According to this report, the key found on the body belonged to a briefcase owned by Hüseyin Koku which was being kept in the house of his brother-in-law, Ahmet Güzel. The briefcase was opened by the gendarmes who found a number of documents in it. These documents related, inter alia, to the criminal proceedings brought against Hüseyin Koku on account of his alleged adultery with C.E. 69. On 29 April 1995 a number of soldiers and village guards once more visited the site where the body had been found and searched for the missing head. They found the skull in three pieces. 70. Later that same day, the Pötürge Prosecutor and Dr Denge visited the area and examined the bones found by the soldiers earlier that day. Dr Denge observed that the posterior part of the skull had a bullet entry, measuring 1 x 1 centimetre. This bullet had also caused a fracture in the skull. The Prosecutor forwarded the skull pieces to the Forensic Medicine Directorate in Istanbul. 71. Between 28 and 30 April 1995 statements were taken by the authorities from members of Hüseyin Koku’s family, who stated that they had heard that Hüseyin Koku had been having an extra-marital affair with C.E. and that C.E.’s family were angry with Hüseyin. 72. On 1 May 1995 Fatma Koku submitted a petition to the Elbistan Prosecutor and asked for the remains of her husband to be returned to her after they had been examined in Istanbul. 73. On 25 May 1995 the Forensic Medicine Directorate began its examination of the remains of the body. The Ballistics Department was asked to establish whether the clothes worn by the deceased bore any damage caused by a bullet or sharp objects. In case bullet damage was found, the Ballistics Department was requested to establish the distance from which the bullet had been fired. 74. On 26 May 1995 the Pötürge Prosecutor, Zeki Polat, sent a letter to his colleague in the town of Elbistan, stating that, in his opinion, the affair Hüseyin Koku had being conducting with C.E. could be connected with his death in October 1994. Mr Polat asked the Elbistan Prosecutor to take statements from members of C.E.’s family who lived in the town of Elbistan. 75. The Pötürge Prosecutor also sent a letter to the Forensic Medicine Directorate on 26 May 1995 and urged them to expedite the examination of the remains of Hüseyin Koku’s body. 76. On 1 June 1995 Pötürge Prosecutor Mr Polat drew up a report in which he detailed the developments that had taken place in the investigation. According to this report, Hüseyin Koku, chairman of HADEP’s Elbistan branch, had been found dead on 26 April 1995 with a possible bullet entry wound on his skull. Mr Polat had also found out from the Elbistan Prosecutor that the disappearance of Hüseyin Koku in October 1994 had been brought to the attention of that Prosecutor. The husband of C.E. had also disappeared 15-20 days prior to the disappearance of Hüseyin Koku and C.E. had then started living with another man in Gaziantep. Hüseyin Koku had gone to Gaziantep prior to his disappearance and had had a row with that man. 77. On 13 June 1995 the Ballistics Department concluded that the large number of cuts and other damage on the clothes had been caused by rotting. 78. On 29 June 1995 the Forensic Medicine Directorate recorded in their report that Hüseyin Koku had been shot in the head from behind. It was also observed that another bullet had gone through the spine. It was concluded that the two bullets had caused the death but that it was not possible to establish the distance from which the bullets had been fired. The report contains no information as regards the time of death. 79. In a letter of 18 August 1995 the Prosecutor in Elbistan requested the Prosecutor in the city of Gaziantep to question C.E. in order to establish whether she had any information about the death of Hüseyin Koku. 80. On 23 August 1995 the remains of Hüseyin Koku’s body were returned to the Pötürge Prosecutor, who then handed them over to the family’s lawyer for burial. 81. On 5 September 1995 a statement was taken from C.E. by the Prosecutor in Gaziantep. In her statement C.E. denied that she had had a relationship with Hüseyin Koku and added that she did not know anything about his death. 82. On 18 January 1996 a certain Mr Aziz Dalkılıç was questioned by a gendarme officer in relation to “the killing of a person by two people in a location near Sinan village in the autumn of 1994”. Mr Dalkılıç stated that at around 3 p.m. one day in late October 1994, he and his wife had gone to the forest to collect leaves for his animals. Approximately two hours later, when they had finished collecting leaves and had begun their journey back in a tractor, they had seen three men, one of whom was lying on the ground, with his face down, between two rocks, and the other two had “taken positions”. The two men who had “taken positions” were wearing clothing and hats similar to military uniforms and military boots. All three men were wearing light brown vests, similar to the type in which ammunition could be carried. Mr Dalkılıç was able to see the barrel of the gun of one of the men. He did not think that the men had seen him or his wife. He had not heard any gun shots. He and his wife had been scared and taken another path which took them to the asphalt road. On their way home, they had seen a minibus whose driver he knew. He had told the minibus driver that he and his wife had seen three armed men and asked the minibus driver to inform the gendarme station. 83. The following day Mr Dalkılıç had been summoned to the gendarme station where he was questioned about what he and his wife had witnessed the previous day. He had heard at a later date that the soldiers had gone to the area to look for the three men but that they were unable to find them. 84. At 9 a.m. on 2 February 1996 Mr Dalkılıç was collected from his house by gendarmes and taken to the place where he had seen the three persons. Mr Dalkılıç showed the gendarmes the two rocks between which the “dead man”, who was wearing military clothing, had been lying. 85. Also on 2 February 1996 Mr Dalkılıç was questioned by the Pötürge Prosecutor. Mr Dalkılıç repeated the version of events contained in his previous statement made to the gendarmerie and added that the three men, all with long hair, had been wearing commando uniforms and berets. He did not think any of them was dead. The person lying between two rocks was not moving but the other two were. Although he had told the minibus driver that he had seen three armed men, in fact only two of them had been armed. The fact that the men had longer hair than soldiers’ had led him to form the opinion that the two men were terrorists. 86. On 8 March 1996 the Prosecutor at the Malatya Court sent a letter to the Prosecutor in Elbistan and asked him whether an investigation had been carried out into the disappearance of Hüseyin Koku in October 1994. The Prosecutor also referred in his letter to the following correspondence: (a) a letter sent to the Elbistan Prosecutor by the Directorate on 1 September 1995; (b) a letter sent by the Elbistan Prosecutor on 8 September 1995; (c) a letter sent by the Prosecutor’s office at the Malatya Court to the Directorate on 11 September 1995; (d) a letter sent by the Directorate on 26 September 1995; (e) a reply given on 27 September 1995 by the Prosecutor’s office at the Malatya Court to the Directorate’s letter of 26 September 1995; (f) a letter sent by the Directorate on 28 February 1996 to the Elbistan Prosecutor; and, finally, (g) a letter sent by the Elbistan Prosecutor on 1 March 1996. 87. On 24 September 1996 the Elbistan Prosecutor forwarded to the Directorate the decision taken by his office on 20 December 1993 not to prosecute Hüseyin Koku and C.E. for adultery. 88. The following information appears from the documents submitted by the applicant. 89. On 1 November 1994 Fatma Koku submitted a petition to the Prosecutor’s office in the town of Elbistan. Mrs Koku alleged in that petition that her husband had been taken away by plain-clothes police officers in a Renault car at around midday on 20 October 1994. She further stated that she had already contacted the Elbistan Police Headquarters where she had been told that her husband had not been detained by the police. She finally stated that her fears for her husband’s safety were heightened following the publication of a press release – drawn up by the Governor of Elbistan – in the local paper on 31 October 1994. According to that communiqué, her husband had not been detained by the police. She asked the Prosecutor to look for her husband. Mrs Koku enclosed a photograph of her husband with her petition and wrote her address on the petition. 90. Mrs Koku’s petition was accepted by the Prosecutor the same day. On the petition the Prosecutor wrote his instructions according to which “[Hüseyin Koku] should be searched for in the places where he may be”. It also appears that this petition and the instructions were forwarded to the Elbistan Police Headquarters the same day. 91. On 3 November 1994 Mrs Koku submitted a similar petition, together with a photograph of her husband, to the office of the Governor of Kahramanmaraş. 92. Mr Bulut Yılmaz sent three letters to the applicant’s lawyers in which he described his eye-witness account of the abduction of Hüseyin Koku on 20 October 1994 (see paragraph 20 above). Mr Yılmaz left Turkey in 1995 and settled in Switzerland where he was subsequently granted political asylum. According to these letters, Mr Yılmaz had seen two plain-clothes police officers talking to Hüseyin Koku on Malatya Street in Elbistan on 20 October 1994. Hüseyin had then got into the white Renault car and left with the police officers. 93. The applicant submitted to the Court a chronology of incidents, listing attacks against representatives of pro-Kurdish political parties, in particular the People’s Labour Party (HEP), DEP and HADEP, between 1990 and 2001. This chronology lists a large number of attacks against members of these pro-Kurdish political parties who either died or were left injured as a result. It also lists armed attacks and bombings, etc. against the premises of these parties. According to the list, over sixty politicians belonging to the above mentioned political parties have been murdered between the entry into the Parliament of HEP in 1990 and the abduction of Hüseyin Koku in October 1994.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. On 19 July 1993 the applicants brought separate actions before the Baskil Civil Court of First Instance against the National Water Board. They alleged that their plots of land had been illegally seized by the administration for dam construction without any payment being made and requested compensation in this respect. 5. On 2 December 1993 the Baskil Civil Court of First Instance held that the cases should be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation rather than compensation claims arising from the illegal seizure of the applicants’ land since a committee of experts had assessed the value of the land and this amount had been paid by the authorities to those who were indicated as the owners of the land in the Land Registry. The court ordered the administration to pay the applicants an amount of increased compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 1986, when the plots of lands were submerged in the waters of the dam. 6. On 6 October 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgments of the first-instance court and held that the cases could not be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation. The applicants requested rectification of the decisions of the Court of Cassation. 7. On 7 March 1995 the Court of Cassation rectified its decisions, holding that the cases could be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation. It quashed the judgments of the first-instance court only in respect of the date from which the statutory rate of interest began to run from. 8. On 9 October 1997 the first-instance court abided by the ruling of the Court of Cassation. It accordingly ordered the administration to pay Ali Aslangiray, Fatma Özbilge and Gülsüm Özbilge 303,510,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 1,540 euros (EUR)), TRL 216,503,800 (approximately EUR 1,100) and TRL 424,914,000 (approximately EUR 2,155) respectively, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 19 August 1993, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the National Water Board. The National Water Board appealed. 9. On 17 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments of the Baskil Civil Court of First Instance. 10. On 2 April 1998 the decisions of the Court of Cassation were served on the applicants. 11. On 11 November 1998 the administration paid the applicants the amounts due together with interest.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1948 and lives in Diyarbakır. 10. The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place between 6 and 12 October 1994, are disputed by the parties. 11. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 12-25). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 26-35). Documentary evidence submitted by the Government and the applicant are summarised in Sections D (paragraphs 36-57) and E (paragraphs 58-62) respectively. 12. On 6 October 1994 at about 1.30 a.m., seven police officers from the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters came to the applicant’s house in Diyarbakır and questioned the applicant about her son Aydın’s whereabouts. Aydın had previously been taken into police custody on 26 August 1993, placed in detention on remand on 8 September 1993 and released on 10 November 1993. As he was afraid to find himself in the hands of the police once again, he was hiding at his relative Barış Kalkan’s house in Diyarbakır. Aware of her son’s fears, the applicant told the police officers that Aydın had gone to Istanbul. 13. The police officers also questioned the applicant’s two other sons, İrfan and Turan, who, like the applicant, stated that their brother Aydın had gone to İstanbul. The officers conducted a search of the house and took a certain amount of German marks. Five of the police officers left, taking İrfan and Turan with them. The remaining two police officers stayed in the applicant’s house and continued questioning the applicant and her daughter, Saniye, until the following morning. 14. In the morning the applicant’s husband Mersin returned home. The police stayed for two days and two nights, changing shifts at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. each day. After the second day, the police forced the applicant’s husband to sign a document. 15. The police officers took İrfan and Turan to the Police Headquarters where they were questioned about Aydın for an hour and a half. Thereafter, İrfan and Turan were taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital to be examined by a doctor. From the hospital they were taken back to the Police Headquarters and again interrogated about Aydın. 16. The police asked İrfan about his relative Barış. İrfan informed them that he knew Barış, who was both a childhood friend of Aydın’s and a relative, and gave the police his address. The police officers then went to Barış’s house, taking İrfan with them. 17. On the morning of 6 October 1994, Barış’s mother saw a number of police vehicles in front of her building and warned Aydın. Aydın and Barış tried to run away but were caught by police officers while they were going up onto the roof. As the police were taking Aydın, Barış and Barış’s brother Yılmaz downstairs, Aydın made another attempt at escape. Yılmaz and Barış heard one of the police officers say that he was going to kill Aydın, but the other officers said that they needed Aydın for interrogation. Aydın was caught in the doorway and made to lie face down. He was handcuffed and a gun was held to his head. According to İrfan, Aydın was beaten up; he saw that Aydın’s head was bleeding and heard him screaming. 18. The police officers put Barış and Yılmaz in one vehicle and Aydın in another. They were then taken to the Police Headquarters. After ten minutes, they were taken to the State Hospital for a medical check. They were then put back into the vehicles. Yılmaz and Barış were in the back seat. Yılmaz heard the two policemen sitting in the front say, “Aydın told the doctors at the hospital that he had been tortured and that he was going to be killed. Let him come to the ‘camp’. We’ll show him that death will not be that easy.” Yılmaz, Barış and Aydın entered the Police Headquarters together. İrfan was also brought back to the Police Headquarters. Later, he realised that Aydın had also been brought there. According to İrfan, as soon as the police officers brought Aydın to the Police Headquarters they began torturing him. İrfan heard Aydın screaming and saying that “his arm was going to break off and that he could neither clap his hands nor was he able to walk”. The rest of the time Aydın was constantly screaming and saying that he was innocent. 19. Barış and Yılmaz were put into different cells. Yılmaz was in cell no. 13, from where he could hear Aydın screaming. Yılmaz was later moved into cell no. 8, from where he could hear most of the conversations between the police officers and Aydın. He heard the police officers threaten Aydın by telling him that death would not be easy. Aydın was saying that he was innocent, and that he could neither walk nor clap his hands. The torture lasted about one hour. Yılmaz, looking through the grill in the door, saw that Aydın was being taken away by the policemen, who were holding him from his arms and dragging him along the floor. 20. On 7 October 1994 Yılmaz was taken to the interrogation room. He was asked if Aydın was a member of the “organisation” (that is the PKK - the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). He was further questioned about Barış’s relationship with Aydın and the reason why Barış’s family let Aydın stay in their house. 21. On 8 October 1994 Yılmaz signed a statement of 7 pages, which the police had drawn up. He did not know what was recorded in the statement. He was then taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital and was forced to tell the doctor that he had not been tortured. He was released after the medical examination. İrfan was also released on 8 October 1994, following a medical examination. 22. When İrfan and Yılmaz returned home they told the applicant that Aydın was in custody and that he was being very badly tortured. The applicant went to the Diyarbakır branch of the Human Rights Association for help. In the meantime, the applicant had already submitted a petition to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the Diyarbakır Court”) on 7 October 1994 and asked for information about her son. On 10 October 1994 the Prosecutor wrote on the same petition that the applicant’s son had been taken into detention at the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters. 23. On 11 October 1994 at about 6 p.m., police came to the applicant’s house and then went to Barış’s house. They told the neighbours that Barış was in a coma and that the applicant should go and pick up the body of Aydın. 24. On the morning of 12 October 1994 the neighbours informed the applicant and she went to the hospital. The police first denied any knowledge about the matter. Her brother-in-law Ahmet then arrived at the hospital and told her that the police had informed him that Aydın’s body was at the morgue. The police at the hospital continued to deny that they had Aydın’s body. Two hours later they acknowledged that Aydın’s body was indeed in the morgue. They refused the applicant permission to see her son. The Prosecutor at the hospital told Ahmet that Aydın had thrown himself from a window on the seventh floor and asked Ahmet whether he wanted to file a complaint against anyone. Ahmet told the Prosecutor that there was no use in filing a complaint as Aydın had been killed by the police who then tried to cover up his death by saying that he had thrown himself from a window. 25. Aydın’s burial certificate stated that he had died on 12 October 1994. The necessary forensic and medical examination of the body and the autopsy were performed on 12 October 1994. When the applicant requested a copy of the autopsy report, she was told that all the documents had been sent to Ankara. On 13 October 1994 Aydın was buried. 26. On 6 October 1994 Aydın Kişmir was arrested in Diyarbakır together with Barış Kalkan, Mehmet Şirin Demir, Turan Kişmir, Behçet Ekinci, İrfan Kişmir and Yılmaz Kalkan on suspicion of having collaborated with the PKK. 27. When the policemen entered Barış Kalkan’s flat to arrest Aydın, he tried to escape but lost his balance and fell, hitting a wall in the process. He was arrested at the entrance to the building. A false identity card was found on him. This version of events was confirmed by Barış Kalkan in a statement given by him to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court on 13 October 1994. 28. Immediately after his arrest, Aydın was taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital at 6 a.m. to have his wounds treated. According to the medical report drawn up by Dr Kinyas Öztürk, the duty doctor at the hospital, Aydın had suffered two wounds, one above the right eye and another on the big toe of his right foot, which were not serious. 29. Later in the day Aydın Kişmir was again taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital for treatment of a bleeding wound in the head, a 6 cm. long laceration in the occipital area. According to Dr Zafer Özdağ, who stitched the wound, Aydın did not require hospitalisation but he was prescribed medication. Both Dr Öztürk and Dr Özdağ were subsequently questioned by the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court in relation to the report prepared by Dr Öztürk in which the injury to the head had not been recorded. Dr Öztürk stated that Aydın had not mentioned to him any injury other than the two which had been recorded in his report. 30. After having his head wound stitched, Aydın Kişmir was again taken to the Police Headquarters and put in a cell, without having been interrogated. According to the statement of Ramazan Kutlu, a detainee who was in the same cell as Aydın Kişmir, the police gave Aydın his medication regularly. In the early hours of 11 October 1994, Aydın Kişmir’s condition deteriorated. Aydın Kişmir died during the efforts to take him to hospital. 31. On 12 October 1994 an autopsy was conducted in Diyarbakır. The autopsy report stated that Aydın Kişmir’s death had occurred due to asphyxia. As the cause of asphyxia could not be identified, certain dissected body parts were sent to the Forensic Medicine Directorate in İstanbul for further forensic examinations to be carried out. According to the report of the chemical analysis section of the Forensic Medicine Directorate, which was drawn up on 7 December 1994, no toxicological evidence was detected in any of the sample tissues. 32. On 12 December 1994 a second report was prepared by the histology laboratory, in which it was stated that no abnormalities had been detected in any of the body parts. 33. On 25 January 1995, a final report was issued by the First Committee of Experts of the Forensic Medicine Directorate. According to this report, the findings clearly pointed to a natural death which might have been due to Aydın Kişmir’s previous health problems. 34. On 7 November 1995 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court took a decision not to prosecute as he concluded at the end of his investigation that there had been no ill-treatment or torture, and that the death had occurred due to natural causes. 35. On 19 December 1996 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor issued another decision not to prosecute. This decision was served on the applicant on 27 January 1997 and became final on 13 February 1997 as no appeal had been lodged against it. 36. This was a verbatim record, drawn up by Ahmet Başaran, the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court, and Dr Lokman Eğilmez, the director of the Diyarbakır Branch of the Forensic Medicine Directorate, during the autopsy which they carried out on the body of Aydın Kişmir at the Diyarbakır State Hospital on 12 October 1994. The report stated that Dr Kinyas Öztürk, the last doctor to examine Aydın Kişmir, was on leave and therefore could not be present during the autopsy. 37. The report began by stating that Aydın Kişmir had lost his life at the detention facility of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters at 5 a.m. on 12 October 1994. His body had then been transferred to the morgue at the Diyarbakır State Hospital. 38. The report described the deceased as being 175 cm tall and weighing 70-75 kgs. Rigor mortis and post mortem hypostasis had set in. The Prosecutor and the doctor observed the following injuries: a 2 cm sutured wound on the top of the head; a 1 cm wound over the right eyebrow; purple bruising around the right eye; purple bruising on the outer surface of the right hand between the thumb and the wrist; a scabbed wound, measuring 2 x 2 cm, over the coccyx; purple bruising on the outside of the right arm measuring 2x 2 cm and finally a graze, measuring 2 x 2 cm, on the big toe of the right foot. 39. Other external findings noted were a slight deformation on the right side of the chest. The nailbeds, lips and ears were described as being cyanosed. There was widespread bleeding under the skin of the back. The external genitalia were normal. The epidermis was described as separating from the dermis. 40. The body was photographed both before and during the internal examination of the body. 41. The internal examination found that there was bruising and haematoma under the sutured injury. The skull was intact. There was no bleeding on either the outside or the inside of the brain membranes. The brain was described as being slightly oedematous. The sections taken of the brain and the cerebellum were normal. The bones of the skull base were not fractured. 42. The mouth, throat and neck structures were described as being normal. The chest deformation was noted to be structural and not due to trauma. There were several bleeding spots on the lung surfaces. The lungs were extensively oedematous and congested. The heart was described as being normal on external examination. Sectioning revealed a thick, narrow, mitral valve. 43. Stress ulcers seen in the stomach were associated with a little bleeding. The other organs in the abdomen were normal. 44. During the autopsy the Prosecutor and the doctor had regard to a medical report which had been drawn up at the Diyarbakır State Hospital on 6 October 1994. This report, which was numbered 4381, was not made available to the Commission or to the Court. According to a summary of this report reproduced in the autopsy report, a wound measuring 1 x 3 cm featured above Aydın Kişmir’s right eye. There was also a slight wound on the big toe of the right foot. Neither of these two wounds was life threatening. 45. The Prosecutor and the doctor had regard to an arrest report drawn up at 6 a.m. on 6 October 1994 in relation to the arrest of Aydın Kişmir. This report was also not made available to either the Commission or to the Court. It appears from the summary of this report, which was reproduced in the autopsy report, that Aydın Kişmir and two other men had been in a flat on the sixth floor of a block of flats. When they were running down the stairs, Aydin Kişmir had fallen down, injuring his right toe and also a spot above his right eye. The Prosecutor asked Dr Eğilmez whether the injuries observed during the autopsy could have been caused in the course of the sequence of events as described in the arrest report. Dr Eğilmez replied that the injuries recorded in report no. 4381 were consistent with the injuries described in the arrest report. 46. A decision was made to send the samples taken from internal organs for histology and toxicology examinations. 47. The doctor concluded that the death was due to asphyxiation and added that it would be possible to establish the cause of the asphyxiation after the examination of the body samples at the Forensic Medicine Directorate in Istanbul. 48. According to this report, the body samples taken from Aydın Kişmir’s body during the autopsy which were subjected to a toxicological examination did not disclose any poisons. 49. This was a report drawn up and signed by a number of doctors. The report referred to the conclusions set out in the above mentioned autopsy and toxicology reports. In this report there was also a reference to a histology report, which had apparently been drawn up on 12 December 1994 and had concluded that the examination of the samples from the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and the spleen had revealed the presence of autolysis, but that nothing was seen in the brain or cerebellum. A decision was taken to seek the opinion of the Specialist Council of the Forensic Medicine Directorate. 50. This report was drawn up and signed by eight doctors, each a specialist in different areas of medicine. They based their opinions on the reports referred to above and on the photographs of the body which had been taken during the autopsy (see paragraph 40 above). The doctors also had regard to two statements taken from Ramazan Kutlu and Dr Zafer Özdağ on 13 October 1994. It appears from the summaries of these statements, which are reproduced in the report, that Ramazan Kutlu had been detained in the same place as Aydın Kişmir and that Aydın had allegedly told Mr Kutlu that he had hurt himself while trying to run away from the police during his arrest and, because of that, his right foot was swollen and he was unwell. Mr Kutlu was also said to have added that Aydın Kişmir’s condition had worsened during the night of 11 October 1994 and that he had died early in the morning. 51. Dr Zafer Özdağ was reported as having said in his statement of 13 October 1994 that Aydın Kişmir had been brought to him by officials on 6 October 1994 and that, apart from the findings he had previously observed, he had now also observed a wound, measuring 6 x 6 cm, on the top part of the head which did not require hospitalisation. 52. The Specialist Council concluded that death was due to respiratory failure related to lung oedema. The Council commented that, apart from the wounds on the top part of the head, above the right eyebrow and the big toe of the right foot, there were no other symptoms of an assault or traumatic change, which excluded the possibility of an external trauma being the cause of death. 53. The Specialist Council further commented that, although there was evidence of asphyxiation, no change was observed in the neck area under the skin and there was no evidence of any compression of the chest or abdomen to indicate that death had occurred as the result of mechanical asphyxiation. There was oedema of the lungs and brain, and ulcers in the stomach with bleeding from them, indicating general anoxia and asphyxiation findings related to extreme lung oedema. 54. This decision was taken by the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court. Birol Yaman, a police officer at the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters, was referred to in the decision as the defendant. The offence in question was recorded as “death in custody on 12 October 1994”. 55. The Prosecutor stated that Aydın Kişmir “who is a member of the terrorist organisation”, had fallen down the stairs in an attempt to avoid arrest by police officers and injured himself. He had then been taken by police officers to the Diyarbakır State Hospital for treatment. The Prosecutor also referred to the medical reports above, and added that the report of 25 January 1995 (see paragraphs 50-53 above) had been submitted to the First Specialist Council of the Forensic Medicine Directorate on 26 February 1996, “to establish the cause of the oedema in the lungs, which had caused the respiratory failure”. 56. A copy of the subsequent report of the First Specialist Council of the Forensic Medicine Directorate (date unknown) was not made available to the Commission or to the Court. However, according to the decision not to prosecute, it was stated in that medical report that there was no evidence to suggest that the oedema in the lungs had been due to a technical or traumatic reason. The First Specialist Council had apparently concluded that the cause of the oedema could not be established because the body samples sent for microscopic examination had become autolysed[1]. The Prosecutor concluded therefore that there was no evidence that the officer had committed the offence in question and he decided not to prosecute the accused. 57. This decision, which was communicated to the applicant on 27 January 1997, became final on 13 February 1997 as no objection had been lodged against it. 58. In her petition the applicant submitted that her two sons, Aydın and Turan, had been arrested in their home by the police on 6 October 1994. She asked the Prosecutor for information about her sons’ fate. 59. On 10 October 1994 the Prosecutor wrote on the applicant’s petition that “[the applicant’s sons] were taken into detention at the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters”. 60. This report was prepared on behalf of the applicant by Dr Christopher Milroy, a Reader in Forensic Pathology at the University of Sheffield and consultant pathologist to the Home Office in the United Kingdom. 61. The report recounted the findings of the autopsy and of the other reports referred to above. Dr Milroy observed, inter alia, the following shortcomings: (a) no organ weights, in particular the weight of the lungs, were recorded. Furthermore, no description of the presence or absence of petechiae[2] was made, despite the diagnosis of asphyxiation; (b) the 6 cm laceration described by Dr Zafer Özdağ is not described in any of the autopsy reports, even though a 6 cm wound, or a scar from such wound, should have been noticed. It seems unlikely that a 2 cm wound seen at autopsy could have been mistaken for a 6 cm wound; in any event they were described in different positions; (c) a 6 cm wound is a large wound to be caused by a fall; this wound appears to have occurred whilst in custody, and not in the fall during the arrest; (d) there is one area of the original autopsy report which does not appear to have been commented on, and that is the presence of diffuse bleeding under the skin of the back. Diffuse bleeding strongly suggests that blows have been delivered to the back; (e) the post mortem findings in this case with lung oedema and congestion, some brain oedema and stress ulcers, and the absence of any natural cause of death, raise strong concerns that death has been caused by mechanical asphyxiation. In positional asphyxia, the pinning of the body and restraint may prevent proper breathing. This could, for example, be caused by the person being laid on the floor and somebody compressing his back. Bleeding into the back would support this scenario. 62. The applicant submitted to the Commission and to the Court a number of statements taken by lawyers at the Diyarbakır branch of the Human Rights Association from witnesses who had either witnessed the arrest of the applicant’s son or who had been detained with the applicant’s son. These statements formed the basis of the applicant’s submissions above (see paragraphs 12-25).

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow. 9. In 1997 the applicant became pregnant. 10. In the night of 1 August 1997, in the thirty-fifth week of pregnancy, the embryo asphyxiated in the womb. On 4 August 1997 the applicant gave birth to a stillborn baby boy and decided to bury him. 11. On 13 August 1997 the stillbirth was registered by the Chertanovskiy branch of the Civil Acts Registration Service (Чертановский отдел ЗАГС). Mr Z., who had been the applicant's husband until their divorce on 25 March 1997, was entered as the stillbirth's father in the birth certificate (акт о рождении) and in the birth register (книга записей рождений). 12. The applicant submitted that the biological father of the stillbirth had been Mr G., with whom she had been living as man and wife since 1994. Mr G. had expected the child and talked about their future son as his own. They could not, however, file a joint declaration establishing the child's paternity because Mr G. had been placed in a detention facility on 20 June 1997. It appears that the applicant had no access to her partner after that date. On 12 October 1997 Mr G. died in custody. 13. The applicant refused to put her former husband's surname on the stillborn child's tombstone and left it empty. 14. On 10 August 2000 the applicant requested the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow to establish Mr G.'s paternity in respect of the stillbirth and amend the child's surname and patronymic name accordingly. In Russian, patronymic names are normally formed from the father's forename and a special ending, -ovich for sons or -ovna for daughters. The applicant relied on Article 49 of the Family Code. 15. On 21 November 2000 the applicant's former husband died. 16. On 16 March 2001 the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow gave its decision. It held that the stillborn child had not acquired civil rights, whereas Article 49 of the Family Code only applied to living children. It ordered the discontinuation of the proceedings because “[the applicant's claim] was not fit for examination and determination in the framework of civil proceedings”. 17. On 18 May 2001 the Moscow City Court, on an appeal by the applicant, upheld the decision of 16 March 2001. The court repeated that “the case could not be examined as a civil action because the child had not acquired civil rights”.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. On 1 September 2001 the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht) ordered the first applicant's detention on remand on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code. 5. On 3 December 2001 the Innsbruck Regional Court convicted the first applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment. It found that, from July 2001 until his arrest, the first applicant had had sexual relations with three different male minors born in 1986 and 1987 respectively. In determining the sentence the court had regard to the first applicant's confession as a mitigating circumstance and to his previous convictions as aggravating circumstance. 6. On 6 December 2001 the first applicant started to serve his sentence of imprisonment at Garsten prison. On 1 September 2002 the first applicant was granted early release from detention. 7. On 25 September 2000 the Wels Regional Court convicted the second applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment, suspended for a probation period of three years. It found that on 3 June 1998 the second applicant had had a sexual encounter with a male minor born in 1981. Referring to Article 41 § 1 of the Criminal Code the court found that the conditions for an extraordinary mitigation of sentence (ausserordentliche Strafmilderung) were met, i.e. a sentence below the statutory level of punishment could be pronounced. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, in particular that the offence had merely been attempted, the court found that a suspended term of imprisonment was commensurate to the second applicant's guilt. 8. On 14 December 2000 the second applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional in that it did not comply with Article 8 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 14. 9. On 20 February 2001 the Linz Court of Appeal dismissed the second applicant's appeal. The Court stated that it had no doubts about the constitutionality of Article 209 of the Criminal Code and referred in this respect to the Constitutional Court's case-law.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Krasnodar. 9. On 26 June 1998 the applicant had a loud quarrel with his neighbour and assaulted him. Further to the neighbour's complaint, the police opened criminal proceedings against the applicant. 10. On 27 October 1998 the applicant was taken in custody and placed in investigations ward no. IZ-18/3 of Novorossiysk[*] (ИЗ 18/3 г. Новороссийска, “the facility”). 11. On 5 November 1998 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk found the applicant guilty of disorderly behaviour, an offence under Article 213 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code, and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. 12. The applicant served the sentence in the same facility. He was released on 28 April 1999. 13. The applicant stayed in cells nos. 11 and 3. 14. According to the applicant, each cell measured approximately 42 m2 and accommodated 42 to 51 inmates. Inmates took turns to sleep. Thirty sleeping places were available, of which two were occupied with water receptacles for washing and flushing the toilet. The water containers were needed as running water was only available for one hour three times a day. No bedding was provided to inmates, save for tattered cotton mattresses. Between 5 November and 28 December 1998 in cell no. 11 the applicant had to sleep without a mattress on metal plates, covering himself with an old, dirty and worn cotton rag. 15. The Government did not dispute the cell measurements suggested by the applicant. They submitted that each cell had had 30 sleeping places, a full set of bedding had been distributed to each inmate and sleeping berths had been made of metal plates and covered with wadded mattresses. 16. According to the applicant, the ventilation in cells was only switched on for a few minutes when “inspectors” visited the facility. Windows were covered with steel plates leaving an open slot of about 10 cm. There was no fresh air in the cells. 17. The Government submitted that cells had been equipped with ventilation. It was switched on and off “in accordance with the schedule approved by the facility director” (order no. 41 of 26 May 1998). A copy of the schedule has not been produced to the Court. On “especially hot” days, doors were open to ensure a better circulation of air. At the material time windows had been covered with metal shields which were removed in 2002. 18. According to the applicant, the lavatory pan sat on an elevation of 0.5 m above the floor. A partition of 1.1 m in height separated it from the rest of the cell. Occasionally an inmate hung a sheet to have some privacy. According to the Government, lavatory pans were located at the entrance and separated from the living area by a brick partition measuring 1.3 m in height and width. 19. According to the applicant, inmates were given one piece of soap per week for the entire cell population. No laundry detergent was available. According to the Government, each inmate received 200 g of washing soap and 70 g of laundry detergent each month. Bathing was possible “regularly”. 20. The applicant claimed that a thick, black and footworn layer of dirt had covered the floor. Inmates' clothing swarmed with lice, spiders and other insects. Between 5 November 1998 and 15 January 1999 cell no. 11 was not once sanitised. Between 15 January and 28 April 1999 cell no. 3 was sanitised on one occasion. In the Government's view, the sanitary and hygienic conditions of the cells were up to the applicable standards and insecticide was distributed every month. 21. According to the applicant, the facility administration took complaints, requests and letters from inmates once a day, between 4.30 and 5 a.m. According to the Government, complaints and requests were taken from inmates during the morning inspection of cells starting at 8 a.m. 22. The applicant further submitted that the food ration had consisted of bread, millet porridge, boiled pearl barley and no-meat soup. In six months inmates were fed on five occasions with pea soup, soup with pasta and boiled rice. 23. In April 1999 the applicant contracted scabies and he received sulphuric and benzyl ointments to treat himself. He was not isolated from other inmates. The applicant's cellmates who contracted scabies and other skin diseases were not taken out of the cell either. The applicant submits that tuberculosis-infected inmates spent, on several occasions, a few days in his cell. According to the Government, infected inmates were isolated in a special wing. The applicant twice fell ill with a high temperature and he was treated with sulphadimisin and aspirin. From 13 to 20 April 1999 the applicant underwent outpatient treatment for dermatitis. 24. By the time of his release, the applicant had lost 15 kilograms in weight, he felt short of breath while walking, tired easily, could not run, and suffered from pustules and itching all over his body. 25. On 5 May 1999 the applicant was examined in clinic no. 1 of Novorossiysk and issued with a certificate confirming that he suffered from emaciation. 26. On 30 July 2002 the applicant filed a civil action for damages against the Treasury of the Russian Federation. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by “inhuman and degrading” conditions of detention in facility no. 18/3. He described the conditions of his detention in detail and relied, in particular, on Article 3 of the Convention. 27. On 1 October 2002 the Pervomayskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region dismissed the applicant's action. It held that the applicant had failed to prove that the officials of facility no. 18/3 had been liable for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him. The court noted that the applicant had served his sentence upon the lawful conviction by a competent court and, therefore, the responsibility of the treasury was not engaged. 28. On 14 November 2002 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld, on an appeal by the applicant, the judgment of 1 October 2002.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Berdiansk. He is a former employee of a Joint Stock Company, the Iskra Brick Factory (“the IBF”). He worked at the IBF from 1 December 1996 to 24 November 1997, when he was dismissed from his position as a senior engineer at his own request. At the time of his dismissal the applicant was not paid the wages owed to him. 7. In March 1997 a construction company, the Closed JSC Donetskzhelezobetonmontazh (hereafter the CJSC), instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the IBF on account of its failure to comply with contractual obligations. 8. The bankruptcy proceedings were initiated on 8 April 1997 by the Zaporizhzhia Regional Arbitration Court (“the ZRAC”). The applicant acted in these proceedings as a representative of the IBF. 9. On 20 August 1997 the ZRAC declared the IBF bankrupt. It also established a liquidation commission to manage its debts. The liquidation commission consisted of representatives of the Berdiansk State Municipal Council, the Berdiansk State Tax Inspectorate, the Financial Department of the State Municipal Council, the Ukrayina Bank (a State-owned bank) and the CJSC. The liquidators were obliged to elect the chairman and members of the liquidation commission within a period of ten days. 10. On 23 September 1997 the commission made an inventory of the IBF’s property. 11. On 16 January 1998 the liquidation commission elected Mr Bogushko as its chairman. 12. Between October 1998 and 14 December 2000, in accordance with the submissions of the parties, the liquidation commission was not in operation. 13. On 5 October 1998 the then chair of the liquidation commission, Ms Chulkova, resigned. 14. On 14 December 2000 the liquidation commission elected Mr Fenenko as its chairman. 15. On 19 January 2001 the President of the ZRAC decided that the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the IBF should be referred from Judge A.E. Kuznetsov for consideration by another judge (Judge V.G. Serkiza). 16. On 19 November 2001 the President of the Zaporizhzhia Regional Commercial Court (the “ZRCC”, former Zaporizhzhia Regional Arbitration Court as renamed in 2001 as a result of “small judicial reform”), decided that the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the IBF should be referred for consideration from Judge V.G. Serkiza to another judge (Judge L.P. Turkina). 17. On 22 March 2002 the ZRCC found that the liquidation commission appointed in 1997 had deviated from its duties. It also informed the members of the liquidation commission that they had incurred criminal liability for failure to comply with the judgments and decisions of the domestic courts. 18. On 22 March, 10 April and 3 June 2002, the ZRCC requested the liquidation commission to submit a report on the results of the operation. 19. On 2 April 2002 the liquidation commission elected a new chairman, Mr Otryshko. The commission discussed the proposal for the friendly settlement of the IBF’s debts. The new chairman of the commission submitted a report to the ZRCC that made no reference to the IBF’s salary debts. 20. On 21 May 2002 the IBF’s shareholders agreed to enter into a friendly settlement with the creditors. 21. On 2 July 2002 the liquidation commission decided to conclude a friendly settlement in the bankruptcy proceedings pending against the IBF. 22. On 3 July 2002 the ZRCC held a hearing with a view to discussing the possible friendly settlement and the report by the liquidation commission. The hearing was adjourned until 23 July 2002. 23. On 23 July 2002 the ZRCC terminated the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the IBF by way of a friendly settlement between the IBF and its creditors (the CJSC and the Berdiansk State Tax Inspectorate). 24. In January 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Berdiansk City Court (the “Berdiansk Court”) against the IBF, seeking the recovery of salary arrears. 25. On 24 February 1998 the Berdiansk Court allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered the IBF to pay him 2,080.38 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) [1]. 26. In April 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Berdiansk Court, seeking compensation for the delay in the payment of salary arrears awarded to him by the decision of 24 February 1998. On 6 May 1998 the Berdiansk Court rejected his claims as being unsubstantiated. On 4 June 1998 the Zaporizhzhia Regional Court upheld that decision. 27. On 22 May 1998 the Bailiffs’ Service of the Berdiansk Court served notice on the IBF to pay the applicant the sums due. 28. On 6 May 1998 the Berdiansk Court rejected the applicant’s additional claims for compensation for the delay in payment of salary arrears as it was unsubstantiated. That judgment was upheld on 4 June 1998 by the Zaporizhzhia Regional Court. 29. On 22 May 1998 the Berdiansk Court’s bailiffs (“the court bailiffs”) instituted enforcement proceedings in the case and requested the IBF to pay the applicant the sum due. 30. On 28 May 1998 the court bailiffs requested the IBF to provide correct information as to its bank accounts, so that the sums due the applicant could be procured. 31. A resolution to initiate enforcement proceedings in the case was issued by the Berdiansk City Bailiffs’ Service (the “bailiffs”) on 5 March 1999, following the transfer of jurisdiction for the enforcement from the court bailiffs. 32. On 8 April 1999 the bailiffs informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed immediately on account of the entry into force of the new Enforcement Proceedings Act and the referral of all the enforcement proceedings from the jurisdiction of the courts to the jurisdiction of the Bailiffs Service of the Ministry of Justice. 33. On 22 April 1999 the bailiffs initiated enforcement proceedings in the case. 34. On 20 April 2000 the bailiffs informed the applicant that a request had been sent to the ZRAC on 20 March 2000 concerning the inactivity of the liquidation commission. It also stated that no response had been received from the ZRAC. 35. On 24 May and 14 September 2000 the bailiffs informed the applicant that the writ of execution could not be sent to the liquidation commission as the commission did not exist de facto. It also informed the applicant that the writs of execution issued by the Berdiansk Court had only been received on 22 April 1999 by the bailiffs. 36. On 17 July and 28 October 2000 the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour to the General Prosecution Service and the Ministry of Justice. On 6 November 2000 the General Prosecution Service transmitted his complaints to the Higher Commercial (formerly Arbitration) Court (“the HCC”). On 18 January 2001 the HCC forwarded his complaints to the ZRAC for a reply. 37. On 31 January 2002 the bailiffs informed the applicant that the most recent chair of the liquidation commission was Ms I. Chulkova. They also stated that, in accordance with section 65 of the Enforcement Proceedings Act, writs of execution had to be transferred to the liquidation commission from the bailiffs. 38. On 4 February 2002 the bailiffs suspended the enforcement proceedings until the election of a new chairman of the liquidation commission and the formation of a new commission. 39. On 10 June 2002 the Berdiansk District Council of the Zaporizhzhia Region informed the bailiffs about the membership of the liquidation commission and its chairman (Mr Otryshko). This information was to be provided to the applicant. 40. On 27 June 2002 the bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings pending before them in the applicant’s case by transmitting the writs of execution to the liquidation commission for the IBF. 41. On 31 July 2002 the applicant complained to the bailiffs about the failure to enforce the judgment. 42. On 13 August 2002 the bailiffs informed the applicant that they were no longer responsible for the enforcement of the judgment of 24 February 1998. 43. In September 2002 the judgment of 24 February 1998 was partly enforced by the liquidation commission and the applicant was paid UAH 1,000[2] in compensation. 44. On 28 October 2002 the applicant complained to the ZRCC about the failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. By a letter of 13 November 2002, a judge of the ZRCC informed the applicant of the friendly settlement in the case. She also stated that the applicant could not be considered a creditor of the IBF as he had not applied to the court in the course of the IBF bankruptcy proceedings to be declared a creditor. She also refused to provide him with documents concerning the bankruptcy proceedings in the case. 45. On 20 December 2002 the applicant lodged complaints with the HCC concerning the failure to pay his salary arrears and the inactivity of the liquidation commission and the bailiffs. On 18 February 2003 the HCC informed the applicant that his complaints had been forwarded to ZRCC for a reply. 46. On 5 March 2003 the applicant lodged complaints with the ZRCC, seeking a declaration that he was a creditor of the IBF and an order requiring the IBF to enforce the judgment of 24 February 1998. He also sought a declaration that the friendly settlement reached by the IBF and its creditors was unlawful. By a letter of 18 April 2003, the ZRCC informed the applicant that, as he had failed to lodge a request to be recognised as a creditor during the bankruptcy proceedings in the case (April 1997 – July 2002), he could not claim to be a creditor and could not therefore seek to have the friendly settlement declared unlawful. 47. On 26 November 2001 the applicant lodged complaints with the Berdiansk Court, seeking a declaration that the inactivity of the Head of the State Execution Service Department was unlawful in view of his failure to enforce the judgment of 24 February 1998. 48. On 28 November 2001 the complaint was left without consideration for failure to comply with the formalities prescribed by law. 49. On 25 December 2001 the applicant again lodged a complaint with the Berdiansk Court against the bailiffs, seeking to have their failure to enforce the judgment of 24 February 1998 declared unlawful. In December 2001 the Berdiansk Court rejected this complaint on account of the applicant’s failure to comply with the requirements as to its form and content. The applicant was allowed ten days to rectify the matter. 50. On 8 January 2002 the applicant resubmitted his complaint. 51. On 20 March 2002 the Berdiansk Court rejected his complaints as being lodged out of time. 52. On 11 June 2002 the Zaporizhzhia Regional Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) quashed that decision and remitted the case to the same court for a fresh consideration. 53. On 6 September 2002 the applicant lodged additional complaints with the Berdiansk Court, seeking the annulment of the bailiffs’ resolution of 27 June 2002 on the termination of the enforcement proceedings. 54. The proceedings concerning the failure of the bailiffs to act and the resolution on terminating the enforcement proceedings were disjoined, forming two separate proceedings: case no. 2-973/2002 and case no. 2-1378/2002. 55. On 20 November 2002 the Berdiansk Court found in favour of the applicant in the first case (no. 2-973/2002). It also declared unlawful the failure of the bailiffs to enforce the judgment for a lengthy period (four years and nine months) and found the applicant’s complaints to be substantiated. The applicant appealed against this decision as he thought that a mere acknowledgment of the fact that the bailiffs had acted unlawfully was not sufficient to rectify the situation. On 24 April 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment given on 20 November 2002 and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 56. On 20 November 2002 the Berdiansk Court dismissed the applicant’s claims concerning the allegedly unlawful termination of the enforcement proceedings in his second case as being unsubstantiated (case no. 2-1378/2002). The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking the resumption of the enforcement proceedings and an extension of the time allowed for lodging an appeal. On 5 May 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 20 November 2002 and did not consider the applicant’s complaints as they had been lodged out of time (section 39 of the Enforcement Proceedings Act). 57. On 15 May 2003 the applicant requested the Berdiansk Court to extend the time for considering his complaints against the bailiffs’ resolution of 27 June 2002 on terminating the enforcement proceedings in his second case (no. 2-1378/2002). In particular, he alleged that the delay in lodging his complaints was due to the fact that he had received the resolution of 27 June 2002 in a version that was illegible (it was sent to him twice, on 23 July and 6 August 2002). He had lodged his complaints only on 6 September 2002 as he could not read the documents supplied to him by the bailiffs, which were allegedly of a very poor quality. He has not given the Court any further information as to the outcome of these proceedings. 58. On 19 August 2003 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the ruling of 24 April 2003 in the first case (no. 2-973/2002). 59. On 20 April 2004 the Registry of the Supreme Court informed the applicant that his appeal had been received. It also stated that it was pending for consideration before the Supreme Court. 60. On 1 November 2004 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as it found no infringements of the rules of substantive or procedural law. It also found that there were no grounds for remitting the appeal for consideration by the Chamber of the Supreme Court.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. Criminal proceedings had been pending since 1997 against the applicant, who had absconded. On 12 February 1998 he was arrested by the police and remanded in custody by the Tábor District Court (Okresní soud). 9. By a judgment of 3 March 1999, the České Budĕjovice Regional Court (Krajský soud) convicted the applicant on several counts, including theft, trespass and illegal possession of weapons, and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment. It also imposed a fine and disqualified him from driving for five years. The judgment also concerned a number of co-defendants, including V.Š. senior and V.Š. junior. 10. The applicant and the prosecutor lodged appeals before the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud) . 11. On 27 April 1999, R.T., a judge at the High Court, was allowed to withdraw from the criminal case V.Š. and Others on the ground that he was acquainted with V.Š.'s family. 12. Mr Chmelíř's appeal was subsequently severed from those of his co-defendants. According to the Government, the severance was necessary because of the applicant's numerous obstruction tactics. The applicant disputed that allegation in his observations, contending that his case had been severed no later than at the second hearing in November 1999, the first having taken place at the end of the previous summer. 13. Appeals by the applicant's co-defendants were dismissed by the High Court on 22 November 1999. 14. On 1 September 2000 the High Court division, in which Judge R.T. was sitting, dismissed the applicant's appeal as ill-founded. 15. On 4 December 2000 Mr Chmelíř lodged a constitutional appeal against the decisions of the lower courts. He complained in particular of the lack of impartiality of two of the High Court judges, observing that one of them knew the family of one of his co-defendants – and had, on that ground, been ordered to stand down from hearing the appeal lodged by the co-defendants, but not the applicant's severed appeal – and that the other was the defendant in an action he had brought for the protection of personality rights. 16. On 30 January 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal as manifestly ill-founded, as it had found no indication that the applicant's guaranteed rights had been violated. 17. On 9 July 2004 the applicant was released on licence. 18. On 3 December 1999 the applicant applied for the withdrawal of M.V., President of the High Court division to which his appeal had been referred, alleging that they had had an intimate relationship in 1996. 19. On 20 December 1999 the High Court decided at a private sitting not to require M.V. to stand down from the applicant's case. Noting that M.V. had stated on 17 December 1999 that he had not been acquainted with the applicant before the criminal case against the latter was referred to him, the court considered that the applicant was simply using dilatory tactics. 20. On 5 January 2000 Mr Chmelíř appealed against that decision through counsel, contending that the High Court had failed to bring together the requisite documents. In his view, even if the objection of bias was lacking in justification, its subject matter was so serious that Judge M.V. should objectively have been excluded from hearing the case. 21. On 25 January 2000 the applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) as ill-founded. 22. By a decision of 15 February 2000 given by the President of the High Court division (M.V.) under Article 66 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant was fined 50,000 Czech korunas (CZK) (approximately 1,674 euros) for contempt of court, on the grounds that he had made false allegations in his application of 3 December 1999 and that those allegations represented an insolent and unprecedented attack on M.V. and were intended to delay the proceedings. The applicant was warned that another similar attack could in the future be classified as a criminal offence. 23. On 24 August 2000 the applicant's appeal was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court, which considered that the impugned decision had been rendered at second instance. 24. On 7 February 2000 the applicant submitted a fresh application for the withdrawal of M.V. from the case, on the ground that he had brought an action against the judge for the protection of personality rights. He considered that this action in itself cast doubt on M.V.'s impartiality. 25. At the High Court hearing on 3 March 2000, the applicant learnt that his application for the judge's withdrawal had been rejected at a private sitting of that court on 1 March 2000. The division presided over by M.V. considered that the applicant's request simply represented a provocative obstruction and a fresh attack on the judge's moral integrity. In the decision of 1 March 2000, the court stated that, in reaching its finding, it had referred to the content of the application for the judge's withdrawal, to the statement made by M.V. on 17 December 1999 (during the proceedings concerning the first application for withdrawal) and to the applicant's previous attempts to obstruct the criminal proceedings. 26. Mr Chmelíř appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court and also lodged a constitutional appeal in which he relied on his right to a fair hearing. 27. On 24 August 2000 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed that appeal, without examining it on the merits, considering that it was premature. 28. On the same day, the Supreme Court declared the applicant's appeal inadmissible, finding that the impugned decision had been rendered at second instance (by an appeal court) and that it was therefore unappealable. 29. On 7 February 2000 the applicant brought an action for the protection of personality rights before the Prague 4 District Court (Obvodní soud) against Judge M.V. in his capacity as president of the division to which his appeal had been referred. He alleged that he had suffered non-pecuniary damage because M.V. had obliged him to attend a hearing on 23 December 1999 even though the judge had been informed of an anonymous threat concerning the presence of explosives on the court premises. 30. On 20 April 2000 the applicant was requested to submit further particulars of his claims, failing which the proceedings would be discontinued. He complied with the request on 8 May 2000. 31. On 12 July 2000 the court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the submissions lacked precision. 32. The applicant appealed on 18 August 2000. 33. On 23 March 2001 the Prague City Court (Městský soud) set aside the decision of 12 July 2000, finding that cases concerning the protection of personality rights should be heard by the regional courts (or, in Prague, the City Court). 34. On 12 February 2002 the High Court of Prague settled the dispute as to jurisdiction by referring the case to the Prague City Court. 35. On 10 October 2002 the City Court judge requested the applicant to submit more precise claims. 36. On 26 August 2003 the applicant's case was dismissed because he had failed to provide sufficient particulars of his claims. 37. On 8 March 2004 the High Court, to which the applicant had appealed, set aside the judgment of 26 August 2003 and decided that it was necessary to proceed with the examination of that part of the action which concerned redress for non-pecuniary damage (evaluated by the applicant at CZK 500,000). 38. On 17 September 2004 the City Court rejected that part of the application. The applicant intended to appeal.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

10. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Cherepovets, an important steel-producing centre approximately 300 kilometres north-east of Moscow. In 1982 her family moved to a flat situated at 1 Zhukov Street, approximately 450 metres from the site of the Severstal steel plant (“the plant”). This flat was provided by the plant to the applicant's husband, Mr Nikolay Fadeyev, under a tenancy agreement. 11. The plant was built during the Soviet era and was owned by the Ministry of Black Metallurgy of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The plant was, and remains, the largest iron smelter in Russia and the main employer for approximately 60,000 people. In order to delimit the areas in which the pollution caused by steel production might be excessive, the authorities established a buffer zone around the Severstal premises – “the sanitary security zone”. This zone was first delimited in 1965. It covered a 5,000-metre-wide area around the site of the plant. Although this zone was, in theory, supposed to separate the plant from the town's residential areas, in practice thousands of people (including the applicant's family) lived there. The blocks of flats in the zone belonged to the plant and were designated mainly for its workers, who occupied the flats as life-long tenants (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). A decree of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR, dated 10 September 1974, imposed on the Ministry of Black Metallurgy the obligation to resettle the inhabitants of the sanitary security zone who lived in districts nos. 213 and 214 by 1977. However, this has not been done. 12. In 1990 the government of the RSFSR adopted a programme “On improving the environmental situation in Cherepovets”. The programme stated that “the concentration of toxic substances in the town's air exceed[ed] the acceptable norms many times” and that the morbidity rate of Cherepovets residents was higher than the average. It was noted that many people still lived within the steel plant's sanitary security zone. Under the programme, the steel plant was required to reduce its toxic emissions to safe levels by 1998. The programme listed a number of specific technological measures to attain this goal. The steel plant was also ordered to finance the construction of 20,000 square metres of residential property every year for the resettlement of people living within its sanitary security zone. 13. By Municipal Decree no. 30 of 18 November 1992, the boundaries of the sanitary security zone around the plant were redefined. The width of the zone was reduced to 1,000 metres. 14. In 1993 the steel plant was privatised and acquired by Severstal PLC. In the course of the privatisation the blocks of flats owned by the steel plant that were situated within the zone were transferred to the municipality. 15. On 3 October 1996 the government of the Russian Federation adopted Decree no. 1161 on the special federal programme “Improvement of the environmental situation and public health in Cherepovets” for the period from 1997 to 2010” (in 2002 this programme was replaced by the special federal programme “Russia's ecology and natural resources”). Implementation of the 1996 programme was funded by the World Bank. The second paragraph of this programme stated: “The concentration of certain polluting substances in the town's residential areas is twenty to fifty times higher than the maximum permissible limits (MPLs)[[1]] ...The biggest 'contributor' to atmospheric pollution is Severstal PLC, which is responsible for 96% of all emissions. The highest level of air pollution is registered in the residential districts immediately adjacent to Severstal's industrial site. The principal cause of the emission of toxic substances into the atmosphere is the operation of archaic and ecologically dangerous technologies and equipment in metallurgic and other industries, as well as the low efficiency of gas-cleaning systems. The situation is aggravated by an almost complete overlap of industrial and residential areas of the city, in the absence of their separation by sanitary security zones.” The decree further stated that “the environmental situation in the city ha[d] resulted in a continuing deterioration in public health”. In particular, it stated that over the period from 1991 to 1995 the number of children with respiratory diseases increased from 345 to 945 cases per thousand, those with blood and haematogenic diseases from 3.4 to 11 cases per thousand, and those with skin diseases from 33.3 to 101.1 cases per thousand. The decree also noted that the high level of atmospheric pollution accounted for the increase in respiratory and blood diseases among the city's adult population and the increased number of deaths from cancer. 16. Most of the measures proposed in the programme concerned the functioning of the Severstal steel plant. The decree also enumerated a number of measures concerning the city as a whole: these included the resettlement of 18,900 people from Severstal's sanitary security zone. It transpires from the programme that the State was supposed to be the main source of funding for such resettlement. However, it seems that in subsequent years Severstal PLC continued to pay for the resettlement of the zone's inhabitants, at least as regards districts nos. 213 and 214. Thus, according to Decree no. 1260 by the mayor of Cherepovets dated 4 April 2004, in 2004 the residents of the blocks of flats situated on Gagarin Street were resettled in another district of the city. According to a letter of 3 June 2004 from the mayor of Cherepovets, Severstal funded approximately one-third of the cost of resettlement. 17. On 9 August 2000 the chief sanitary inspector for Cherepovets decided that the width of the sanitary security zone should be 1,000 metres from the main sources of industrial pollution. However, no specific boundaries were identified for the zone. In 2002 the municipality challenged its own Decree no. 30 of 1992, which had established the zone's boundaries (see paragraph 13 above). On 13 June 2002 the Cherepovets City Court declared Decree no. 30 invalid on the ground that it was ultra vires. The City Court ruled that at the relevant time the municipality had not had jurisdiction to define the width of the zone. The boundaries of the sanitary security zone around the Severstal facilities currently remain undefined. 18. In 2001 implementation of the 1996 government programme was discontinued and the measures proposed in it were included in the corresponding section of the sub-programme “Regulation of environmental quality” in the special federal programme “Russia's ecology and natural resources (2002-2010)”. 19. According to a letter from the mayor of Cherepovets dated 3 June 2004, in 1999 the plant was responsible for more than 95% of industrial emissions into the town's air. According to the State Report on the Environment for 1999, the Severstal plant in Cherepovets was the largest contributor to air pollution of all metallurgical plants in Russia. 20. In 1995 the applicant, with her family and various other residents of the block of flats where she lived, brought a court action seeking resettlement outside the zone. The applicant claimed that the concentration of toxic elements and the noise levels in the sanitary security zone exceeded the maximum permissible limits established by Russian legislation. The applicant alleged that the environmental situation in the zone was hazardous for humans, and that living there was potentially dangerous to health and life. In support of her claims she relied mainly on the city planning regulations of 1989 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). According to the applicant, these regulations imposed an obligation on the plant's owners to implement various ecological measures in the zone, including the resettlement of residents in an ecologically safe area. The applicant claimed that Severstal had failed to fulfil this obligation. 21. On 17 April 1996 the Cherepovets City Court examined the applicant's action. The court recognised that the building at 1 Zhukov Street, where she lived, was located within Severstal's sanitary security zone. The court noted that, prior to 1993, the applicant's flat had been owned by the Ministry of Black Metallurgy, which had also owned the plant. Following privatisation of the plant in 1993, it had become a privately owned entity and the applicant's flat had become the property of the local authorities. Referring to the ministerial decree of 1974, the court found that the authorities ought to have resettled all of the zone's residents but that they had failed to do so. In view of those findings, the court accepted the applicant's claim in principle, stating that she had the right in domestic law to be resettled. However, no specific order to resettle the applicant was given by the court in the operative part of its judgment. Instead, the court stated that the local authorities must place her on a “priority waiting list” to obtain new local authority housing (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). The court also stated that the applicant's resettlement was conditional on the availability of funds. 22. The applicant appealed, claiming that the obligation to resettle was on the plant rather than on the municipality. She also maintained that the court had distorted the object of her claim: whereas she had been seeking immediate resettlement, the court had ordered that she be placed on a waiting list. In the applicant's view, this decision was unworkable because its enforcement depended on too many conditions (the existence of a resettlement order, the number of people on the waiting list, the availability of funds for resettlement, etc.). 23. On 7 August 1996 the Vologda Regional Court upheld in principle the decision of 17 April 1996, and confirmed that the applicant's home was located within the Severstal steel plant's sanitary security zone. The appeal court further found that the applicant's resettlement in an ecologically safe area was to be carried out by the municipality. Finally, the appeal court excluded from the operative part of the judgment the reference to the availability of funds as a precondition for the applicant's resettlement. 24. The first-instance court issued an execution warrant and transmitted it to a bailiff. However, the decision remained unexecuted for a certain period of time. In a letter of 11 December 1996, the deputy mayor of Cherepovets explained that enforcement of the judgment was blocked, since there were no regulations establishing the procedure for the resettlement of residents outside the zone. 25. On 10 February 1997 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that there was no “priority waiting list” for new housing for residents of the sanitary security zone. 26. In 1999 the applicant brought a fresh action against the municipality, seeking immediate execution of the judgment of 17 April 1996. The applicant claimed, inter alia, that systematic toxic emissions and noise from Severstal PLC's facilities violated her basic right to respect for her private life and home, as guaranteed by the Russian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. She asked to be provided with a flat in an ecologically safe area or with the means to purchase a new flat. 27. On 27 August 1999 the municipality placed the applicant on the general waiting list for new housing. She was no. 6,820 on that list (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). 28. On 31 August 1999 the Cherepovets City Court dismissed the applicant's action. It noted that there was no “priority waiting list” for the resettlement of residents of sanitary security zones, and no council housing had been allocated for that purpose. It concluded that the applicant had been duly placed on the general waiting list. The court held that the judgment of 17 April 1996 had been executed and that there was no need to take any further measures. That judgment was upheld by the Vologda Regional Court on 17 November 1999. 29. The State authorities conduct regular inspections of air quality in the city. Pollution is monitored by four stationary posts of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology, including one (post no. 1) situated at 4 Zhukov Street, 300 metres from the applicant's home. The emission levels of thirteen hazardous substances are monitored by the authorities (nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, carbon oxide, dust, hydrogen sulphide, carbon disulphide, phenol, formaldehyde, sulphur dioxide, nitric oxide, manganese, benzopyrene and lead). Four stationary posts of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology monitor emissions of only the first eight of the above substances; additionally, post no. 1 monitors emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitric oxide, lead, benzopyrene and manganese, and post no. 2 monitors emissions of benzopyrene, manganese and sulphur dioxide. In addition, the State Agency for Sanitary Control conducts regular air tests at distances of one, two, five, seven, and nineteen kilometres from the steel plant. Finally, Severstal PLC has its own monitoring system, which evaluates emissions from every separate industrial facility at the plant. 30. It appears that the basic data on air pollution, whether collected by the State monitoring posts or Severstal, are not publicly available. Both parties produced a number of official documents containing generalised information on industrial pollution in the town. The relevant parts of these documents are summarised in the following paragraphs and in the appendix to this judgment. 31. The applicant claimed that the concentration of certain toxic substances in the air near her home constantly exceeded and continues to exceed the safe levels established by Russian legislation. Thus, in the period from 1990 to 1999 the average annual concentration of dust in the air in the Severstal plant's sanitary security zone was 1.6 to 1.9 times higher than the MPL, the concentration of carbon disulphide was 1.4 to 4 times higher and the concentration of formaldehyde was 2 to 4.7 times higher (data reported by the Cherepovets Centre for Sanitary Control). The Cherepovets State Agency for Hydrometeorology reported that the level of atmospheric pollution within the zone during the period from 1997 to 2001 was rated as “high” or “very high”. The State Agency for Hydrometeorology confirmed that an excessive concentration of other hazardous substances, such as hydrogen sulphide and ammonia, was also registered during this period. 32. As regards the year 2002, the applicant submitted a report prepared by the Northern Regional Office of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring. This report stated, inter alia, that in 2002 the annual average concentration of dust near the applicant's home was 1.9 times higher than the MPL, and that the short-term peak concentration of dust was twice as high as the MPL. In July an over-concentration of carbon oxide was registered near the applicant's home: the short-term peak concentration of this element was 7 times higher than the MPL. The agency also reported that the average annual concentration of formaldehyde in the town was 3 times higher than the MPL. The average annual concentration of carbon disulphide near the applicant's home was 2.9 times higher than the MPL. The short-term peak concentration of phenols was 4 times higher than the MPL, and that of hydrogen sulphide was 4.5 times higher. 33. The applicant also submitted information published on the website of the Northern Department of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology. This source reported that in April 2004 the concentration of formaldehyde in Cherepovets exceeded the norms. In March 2004 the monthly average concentration of formaldehyde was 5 times higher than the MPL. 34. The applicant further produced a study paper entitled “Economic effectiveness of public health measures at Severstal PLC”, drawn up by the Centre for the Preparation and Implementation of International Projects on Technical Assistance, a public body established in 1993 under the supervision of the then State Committee for Environmental Protection. The study was commissioned by the Cherepovets municipality in order to obtain an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of various measures suggested in the 1996 federal programme. The expert team had access to data on fifty-eight polluting elements contained in industrial emissions from the Severstal plant. The experts singled out the thirteen most toxic elements and, using a special dispersion dissemination model, established how these elements affected the morbidity rate in the city. The experts then calculated how the implementation of one or another measure from the federal programme would reduce the concentration of these pollutants, and, consequently, to what extent the morbidity rate would decrease. 35. In April 2004 the applicant informed the Court that further information on atmospheric pollution could be requested from the respondent Government. In particular, the applicant sought to obtain: (a) baseline emissions data for the Severstal plant, including data on the physical parameters of the stacks and the volume of chemicals emitted annually by each process at the Severstal facility; (b) dispersion modelling data for estimating the ambient air concentration of thirteen toxic pollutants at each of the x and y coordinate locations on the Cherepovets city grid, based on the above emissions data. The applicant indicated that this information might be obtained from the Centre for the Preparation and Implementation of International Projects on Technical Assistance (see paragraph 34 above). The applicant also sought data on the ambient air quality in Cherepovets, obtained between 1998 and 1999 as part of the Project on Environmental Management in the Russian Federation, implemented with financial support from the World Bank. In May 2004 the Court invited the respondent Government to submit the information sought by the applicant. 36. In June 2004 the Government submitted a report entitled “The environmental situation in Cherepovets and its correlation with the activity of [Severstal PLC] during the period until 2004”, prepared by the Cherepovets municipality. 37. According to the report, the environmental situation in Cherepovets has improved in recent years: thus, gross emissions of pollutants in the town were reduced from 370.5 thousand tonnes in 1999 to 346.7 thousand tonnes in 2003 (by 6.4%). Overall emissions from the Severstal PLC facilities were reduced during this period from 355.3 to 333.2 thousand tonnes (namely by 5.7%), and the proportion of unsatisfactory testing of atmospheric air at stationary posts fell from 32.7% to 26% in 2003. 38. The report further stated that, according to data received from four stationary posts of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology, a substantial decrease in the concentration of certain hazardous substances was recorded in the period from 1999 to 2003: (i) dust: from 0.2 mg/m³ (1.28 MPL) to 0.11 mg/m³ (0.66 MPL); (ii) hydrogen sulphide: from 0.016 mg/m³ (3.2 MPL) to 0.006 mg/m³ (1.2 MPL); (iii) phenols: from 0.018 mg/m³ (0.6 MPL) to 0.014 mg/m³ (0.47 MPL). 39. According to the report, pollution in the vicinity of the applicant's home was not necessarily higher than in other districts of the town. Thus, the concentration of nitrogen dioxide at post no. 1 was 0.025 mg/m³ in 2003, whereas it was 0.034 mg/m³ at post no. 2, 0.025 mg/m³ at post no. 3 and 0.029 mg/m³ at post no. 4. The average daily concentration of ammonia registered at post no. 1 was 0.016 mg/m³, 0.017 mg/m³ at post no. 2, 0.005 mg/m³ at post no. 3 and 0.0082 mg/m³ at post no. 4. The phenol level registered at post no. 1 was 0.014 mg/m³, 0.015 mg/m³ at post no. 2 and 0.0012 mg/m³ at post no. 4. Finally, the concentration of formaldehyde at post no. 1 was 0.019 mg/m³, whereas it was 0.012 mg/m³ at post no. 2, 0.018 mg/m³ at post no. 3 and 0.02 mg/m³ at post no. 4. 40. The report stated that the average annual concentrations of nitric oxide, lead, manganese, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, phenol, carbon oxide and carbon disulphide did not exceed the MPLs. Excessive annual concentrations were recorded only with respect to dust, formaldehyde and benzopyrene. Over the period from 1999 to 2003, a certain improvement in the quality of air was registered under the steel plant's “pollution plume” in the residential area of the town. Thus, the proportion of unsatisfactory tests was 13.2% in 1999, whereas in 2003 it had fallen to 12.7%. The report emphasised that the proportion of unsatisfactory air tests was decreasing: from 18.4% to 14.2%, as measured at a distance of 1,000 metres from the plant; and from 14.05% to 12.8% at a distance of 3,000 metres. The trend was also positive in respect of certain specific substances: within 1,000 metres the proportion of unsatisfactory tests for nitrogen dioxide decreased from 50% in 1999 to 47% in 2003; for hydrogen sulphide they fell from 75% in 1999 to 20% in 2003; and for phenol they decreased from 52% in 1999 to 38% in 2003. 41. The report contained generalised data on average pollution levels for the years 1999 to 2003, collected from four stationary posts of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology. The Government also produced data collected from monitoring post no. 1, reflecting a reduction in the average annual and maximum pollution levels compared to the situation which existed ten to twenty years ago. The most important data contained in these reports are summarised in the appendix to this judgment. 42. The Government also produced extracts from a report by the chief sanitary inspector for the Vologda region, which was prepared in June 2004 for the purpose of defining new boundaries for the sanitary security zone. According to the report, Severstal was still responsible in 2004 for 94 to 97% of overall air pollution in the city. The report stated that the emissions from Severstal contained eighty different pollutant substances. Despite a significant reduction in pollution in recent years, the maximum concentrations of “five priority pollutants” (dust containing more than 20% of silicon dioxide, ferroalloy dust, nitrogen dioxide, naphthalene and hydrogen sulphide) still exceeded safety standards at distances of one to five kilometres from the plant. The report further indicated that “more than 150,000 people live[d] in a zone where the acceptable level of risk [was] exceeded”. It proposed a number of measures which should reduce the concentration of naphthalene and ferroalloys to safe levels by 2010, and stated that the concentration of all toxic substances originating from the Severstal facilities in the bottom layer of the atmosphere should be below the maximum permissible limits by 2015. 43. Finally, the Government submitted that, should the Court need the documents sought by the applicant and referred to by her representatives as a source of primary information on air pollution, “the authorities of the Russian Federation propose that this document be requested from Mr Koroteyev [one of the applicant's representatives]”. 44. Since 1982 Ms Fadeyeva has been supervised by the clinic at Cherepovets Hospital no. 2. According to the Government, the applicant's medical history in this clinic does not link the deterioration in her health to adverse environmental conditions at her place of residence. 45. In 2001 a medical team from the clinic carried out regular medical check-ups on the staff at the applicant's place of work. As a result of these examinations, the doctors detected indications of an occupational illness in five workers, including the applicant. In 2002 the diagnosis was confirmed: a medical report drawn up by the Hospital of the North-West Scientific Centre for Hygiene and Public Health in St Petersburg on 30 May 2002 stated that she suffered from various illnesses of the nervous system, namely occupational progressive/motor-sensory neuropathy of the upper extremities with paralysis of both middle nerves at the level of the wrist channel (primary diagnosis), osteochondrosis of the spinal vertebrae, deforming arthrosis of the knee joints, moderate myelin sheath degeneration, chronic gastroduodenitis, hypermetropia first grade (eyes) and presbyopia (associated diagnoses). Whilst the causes of these illnesses were not expressly indicated in the report, the doctors stated that they would be exacerbated by “working in conditions of vibration, toxic pollution and an unfavourable climate”. 46. In 2004 the applicant submitted a report entitled “Human health risk assessment of pollutant levels in the vicinity of the Severstal facility in Cherepovets”. This report, commissioned on behalf of the applicant, was prepared by Dr Mark Chernaik[2]. Dr Chernaik concluded that he would expect the population residing within the zone to suffer from above-average incidences of odour annoyance, respiratory infections, irritation of the nose, coughs and headaches, thyroid abnormalities, cancer of the nose and respiratory tract, chronic irritation of the eyes, nose and throat, and adverse impacts on neurobehavioral, neurological, cardiovascular and reproductive functions. The report concluded as follows: “The toxic pollutants found in excessive levels within the sanitary security zone in Cherepovets are all gaseous pollutants specifically produced by iron and steel manufacturing plants (in particular, by process units involved in metallurgical coke production), but not usually by other industrial facilities. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that inadequately controlled emissions from the Severstal facility are a primary cause of the excess incidences of the above-mentioned adverse health conditions of persons residing within the sanitary security zone in Cherepovets.” 47. The applicant also submitted an information note from the environmental department of the Cherepovets municipality, which contained recommendations to Cherepovets residents on how to act in circumstances of “unfavourable weather conditions”, namely when the wind carried emissions from the Severstal plant towards the city. The note recommended that people should stay at home and restrict their physical activity. It also contained dietary suggestions. The primary reason for these restrictive recommendations was emissions from the Severstal plant. The applicant also referred to a letter dated 20 September 2001 from the Cherepovets Centre for Sanitary Control, stating that when such “unfavourable weather conditions” occurred, admissions of children to local health clinics increased by 1.3.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow. 5. On 26 March 1999 she bought a plot of land and a summer house in Michurinsk. 6. On 13 January 2000 a dealer who had assisted her in buying the property instituted proceedings against her, claiming recovery of a debt totalling 1,000 US dollars. 7. On 24 April 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court of the Tambov Region dismissed the claim. 8. On 29 May 2000 the Tambov Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Michurinskiy Town Court for a fresh examination. 9. On 7 September 2000 the applicant filed an application for the case to be transferred to the Perovo District Court of Moscow. 10. On 15 September 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court granted the application and transferred the case. On 20 September 2000 the case file was sent to the Perovo District Court. On 15 November 2000 the plaintiff filed a complaint against the transfer of the case. 11. On 14 December 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court requested the Perovo District Court to confirm receipt of the case file. On 25 December 2000 and 15 February 2001 the Michurinskiy Town Court requested the Perovo District Court to send the case file back so that the plaintiff's complaint could be examined. On 21 February 2001 the Perovo District Court replied that it could not return the case file because the case in question had not been registered with it in the period 2000-2001. On 2 April 2001 the Michurinskiy Town Court again repeated the request. On 7 May 2001 the Perovo District Court returned the case file to the Michurinskiy Town Court. 12. On 12 July 2001, following an application for supervisory review lodged by a member of the Presidium, the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court quashed the Michurinskiy Town Court's ruling of 15 September 2000 concerning transfer of the case to the Perovo District Court of Moscow on the ground, inter alia, that the plaintiff had not been duly notified of the hearing. 13. According to the Government, two hearings were fixed by the Michurinskiy Town Court for 28 August and 13 September 2001, but the applicant did not appear at either hearing. It is not clear whether these were hearings on the merits or whether the court was merely dealing with certain procedural issues. 14. On 28 January 2002, following another application for supervisory review lodged by the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Russia, the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the ruling of 12 July 2001 on the grounds that the applicant had not been duly notified of the hearing, and remitted the case to the Tambov Regional Court for a fresh examination. 15. On 21 March 2002 the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court again quashed the ruling of the Michurinskiy Town Court of 15 September 2000. 16. On 25 April 2002 the applicant filed an application with the Michurinskiy Town Court, requesting that the case be transferred to the Perovo District Court. 17. In September 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the Chairman of the Supreme Court requesting supervisory review of the ruling of 21 March 2002. On 19 February 2003 the Supreme Court returned the application without consideration, as a number of procedural requirements had not been fulfilled. 18. Two hearings on the merits were fixed by the Michurinskiy Town Court for 15 and 22 August 2003. The parties did not appear at either of those hearings. On the latter date the court decided to leave the claim without consideration. That ruling was not appealed against.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Moscow. First set of proceedings 5. On 15 June 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against four publishing houses seeking recognition of his copyright and an award of damages. The claim was lodged with the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow. 6. On 5 November 1998 the claim was rejected on the ground that, according to the rules governing jurisdiction, it should have been filed with another court. On 15 November 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court. 7. The Moscow City Court on 10 December 1998 quashed the ruling of 5 November 1998 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration on the merits. 8. On 22 April 1999 the Ostankinskiy District Court ruled that the case should be remitted to the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow. On 5 May 1999 the applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court. 9. The Moscow City Court on 30 July 1999 quashed the ruling of 22 April 1999 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration on the merits. 10. On 11 November 1999 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 6 December 1999. However, the preparation of the case was initially extended to 31 January 2000 because of the defendants' failure to appear and subsequently extended to 14 February 2000 because of the judge's holiday leave. 11. On 14 February 2000 a hearing on the merits was fixed for 16 March 2000. That hearing did not take place because the case had been transferred to another judge. 12. On 10 August 2000 a hearing was fixed for 21 August 2000. It was initially postponed to 20 November 2000 because the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings, and then to 18 December 2000 because of the defendants' failure to appear. 13. The Ostankinskiy District Court on 18 December 2000 again ruled that the case should be remitted to the Meschanskiy District Court. On 12 February 2001 the applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court. 14. The Moscow City Court on 14 March 2001 quashed the ruling of 18 December 2000 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration on the merits. 15. On 27 August 2001 a hearing on the merits was fixed for 29 November 2001. However, it was first postponed to 28 December 2001 and then to 4 January 2002 because the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings. 16. On 4 January 2002 the hearing was postponed to 7 February 2002 because of the parties' failure to appear. The applicant did not appear on account of illness. 17. On 7 February 2002 the applicant's claim was left without consideration on account of his second failure to appear at the hearing. 18. The Ostankinskiy District Court on 2 September 2002 quashed its ruling of 7 February 2002 on the grounds that the applicant had not been notified about the hearing in due course. The court fixed a new hearing on the merits for 23 September 2002. It appears that the hearing did not take place. 19. On 21 October 2002 the applicant received notification that the hearing was fixed for 5 November 2002. The applicant could not appear on account of his illness and informed the court accordingly. 20. On an unspecified date the case was transferred to another judge, on account of the dismissal of the judge who had been dealing with the case. A preliminary hearing was fixed for 17 April 2003. 21. The applicant attended the hearing on the last mentioned date. However, the judge informed him that she did not have his case file and did not know where it was. Following an unsuccessful two-hour search for the case file the applicant was advised to leave. It later transpired that one of the clerks in the court's registry was in possession of the case file as he had been preparing a reply to a complaint lodged by the applicant. 22. On 24 June 2003 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 18 August 2003. However, preparation of the case was extended to 22 September 2003 because of the judge's sick leave. 23. On 22 September 2003 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 23 October 2003. 24. On 23 October 2003 the applicant's claims against each defendant were divided into four different sets of proceedings. Hearings on the merits of all four claims were fixed for 26 December 2003. 25. The Ostankinskiy District Court partially granted the applicant's claim against the first defendant on 26 December 2003. As the court received no confirmation that the other defendants had been properly notified of the hearings, the hearings on the claims against them were postponed to 30 January 2004, 4 and 5 February 2004. By three judgments delivered on the aforementioned dates, the court partially granted the applicant's claims. The judgments were not appealed against and entered into force. Second set of proceedings 26. On 27 January 2002 the applicant filed two applications with the Supreme Court of Russia and the Moscow City Court respectively, seeking authorisation to study case files related to previously lodged applications for supervisory review of certain judgments concerning his civil claims. The applications were refused on the ground that the legislation in force did not provide for the possibility of studying case files related to applications for supervisory review, since it was an extraordinary remedy. However, a reasoned reply would be sent to the applicant after delivery of a decision. 27. On 3 March 2002 the applicant filed two complaints concerning the refusals with the court. His complaints were rejected by a final ruling of the Moscow City Court of 14 June 2002.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

13. All applicants – or their ancestors – owned real estate which was expropriated during the 1980s or the early 1990s. At the time of the expropriations they were awarded compensation in the form of flats which the authorities undertook to construct and deliver, but which have – with one exception (see paragraph 71 below) – remained unfinished and undelivered until present. The specific circumstances of each case are described below. 14. Mrs Kirilova and her husband owned jointly a house with a yard in the centre of Sofia. 15. By a mayor's order of 29 May 1985 their house was expropriated with a view to the construction of a school and a street. The order, based on section 98(1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 („Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство“ – “TUPA”)(see paragraphs 73 and 74 below), provided that Mrs Kirilova and her husband were to be compensated with one flat and their son, Mr Kirilov, was to be compensated with another flat. Both flats were to be situated in a building which the municipality intended to construct. The expropriated house was valued at 29,311.59 old Bulgarian levs (BGL). 16. By a supplementary order of 28 July 1986, based on section 100 of TUPA (see paragraph 75 below), the mayor indicated the exact flats with which Mrs Kirilova, her husband, and Mr Kirilov were to be compensated, specifying the building in which they would be located and their precise surface. 17. The expropriated house was pulled down and the construction of the school started. Mrs Kirilova and her husband, and their two children, Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider, were settled in a municipal flat in the outskirts of Sofia, pending the construction of the flat offered in compensation. In 1993 Mrs Kirilova's husband died. 18. The construction of the building in which the flats offered in compensation would be located did not start as planned, apparently because of financial difficulties experienced by the municipality. 19. On 22 July 1997 Mrs Kirilova, Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider lodged complaints with the municipality, the regional governor, the Parliament, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Construction and Urban Development, stating that the flats allocated to them as compensation had not been constructed, apparently due to lack of funds. They stated that they had been waiting in vain, despite their repeated complaints. They also alleged that since 1986 the municipality had built and sold flats to other persons, but had never found funds to discharge its obligation to them. They requested to be given other flats as compensation. Their request was placed on a waiting list. 20. By letters of 5 December 1997 and 14 April 1998 the municipality informed Mrs Kirilova, Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider that the construction of the flats was expected to start in 1998 and that additional funds were needed. 21. On 2 January 2001 Mrs Kirilova died. Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider are her only heirs. 22. In April 2004 the municipality served on Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider updated orders under section 100 of TUPA, which had been made on 19 November 2003 and 12 February 2004 respectively. The orders provided that the two applicants were to be offered other flats, not the originally intended ones, due to a modification of the plan of the building under construction. 23. At the time of the latest information from the two applicants (19 April 2004), the construction of the building in which their flats were to be situated had advanced, but it was still unfinished. 24. Mr Ilchev owned part of a house with a yard in Sofia, where he lived. 25. By a mayor's order of 16 March 1988 the house was expropriated for the construction of a subway station. The order, based on section 98(1) of TUPA, provided that Mr Ilchev was to be compensated with a three‑room flat in a building which the municipality intended to construct. The house was valued at BGL 8,484.30. 26. Shortly thereafter the house was occupied and Mr Ilchev was settled in a small municipal flat in the outskirts of the city pending the construction of the flat offered in compensation. 27. In July 1989 the expropriated house was pulled down and a subway station was built on the site. 28. By a supplementary order of 8 September 1989, based on section 100 of TUPA, the mayor indicated the exact flat with which Mr Ilchev was to be compensated, specifying the exact building in which it would be located and its precise surface. 29. The construction of this building never started, apparently because of financial difficulties experienced by the municipality and also because its construction would interfere with the ongoing process of restitution of certain plots of land to their former owners. 30. Mr Ilchev made numerous complaints to the municipal authorities, to no avail. By a letter of 19 June 1998 the deputy‑mayor advised him that the construction of the building in which the flat offered in compensation would be situated could not start because of changes in the zoning plan. After a new plan was drawn up, a new building designed, and financing secured for its construction, Mr Ilchev would be invited to choose another flat. 31. On 21 December 2000 Mr Ilchev requested from the municipality to be allotted another flat, to no avail. 32. Meanwhile, on 9 February 1996, Mr Ilchev commenced proceedings against the municipality under the State Responsibility for Damage Act (see paragraph 80 below). He complained that the municipality had failed to deliver the flat offered in compensation and sought BGL 3,000,000 as compensation for the pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage he had suffered. After being invited by the court to specify and itemise his claims, on 11 March 1996 Mr Ilchev stated that he sought BGL 1,000,000 as compensation for the pecuniary damage he had sustained on account of the delay in the delivery of the flat, and BGL 2,000,000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage, which consisted in insecurity and the impossibility to use and dispose of his property. 33. In a judgment of 23 July 1999 the Sofia City Court partially allowed Mr Ilchev's action, awarding him 500 new Bulgarian levs (BGN)[1] in compensation for non‑pecuniary damage and BGN 536.45 in compensation for pecuniary damage. It held that the municipality's failure to provide Mr Ilchev with a flat was an omission contrary to section 1 of the State Responsibility for Damage Act. 34. Mr Ilchev appealed, claiming that the amount of compensation was too low. The municipality of Sofia also appealed. The Sofia Court of Appeals reversed the Sofia City Court's judgment, holding that the applicant had failed to request the cancelling of the expropriation and had thus been the one at fault for the obtaining situation. 35. Mr Ilchev appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court of Cassation. In a judgment of 16 October 2001 that court quashed the Sofia Court of Appeals' judgment and remitted the case. It held, inter alia, that Mr Ilchev had suffered damages because of the municipality's failure to build and deliver him a flat. The restitution of the expropriated property was impossible because the house had been pulled down for the construction of a subway station. Since the omission of the municipality had been unlawful, Mr Ilchev was entitled to claim compensation for the delay. The court further held that the authorities' obligation to compensate the damage suffered by Mr Ilchev on account of the delay, although stemming from their failure to provide him with a flat, was different from that underlying obligation. 36. On remittal, the Sofia Court of Appeals, in a judgment of 2 October 2002, upheld the Sofia City Court's judgment, but awarded to Mr Ilchev an additional BGN 280.27 in compensation for pecuniary damage, together with interest as from 9 February 1996, when the action had been commenced (see paragraph 32 above), until settlement. It held, inter alia, that the municipality's failure to build and deliver the flat allotted to Mr Ilchev in compensation for his house had been an illegal omission within the meaning of section 1 of the State Responsibility for Damage Act and that the damage suffered by the applicant was a direct and proximate result of this omission. The court also held that the applicant's allegation that the amount of the compensation was too low was partially well‑founded. The applicant, who was an acting officer in the army, had been living on army premises during the weekdays and could have rented the prospective flat out. The amount which he would have received in rent between 1988, when the flat had been due, and 1996, when the action had been commenced, was BGN 280.27. 37. The municipality appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation, arguing that the action was inadmissible and unfounded. The Supreme Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible by a decision of 13 April 2004. It held that the amount in controversy was below BGN 5,000 and that the Sofia Court of Appeals' judgment was therefore not subject to appeal on points of law. The municipality did not appeal against this decision and the Sofia Court of Appeals' judgment of 2 October 2002 entered into force. 38. Following the entry into force of the Sofia Court of Appeals' judgment, on 26 October 2004 Mr Ilchev was issued a writ of execution against the municipality of Sofia for the amount of BGN 1,315.72 in respect of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and BGN 0.70 in respect of costs and expenses for the proceedings, plus interest at the statutory rate as from 9 February 1996, when the action had been commenced (see paragraph 32 above), until settlement. 39. On 29 November 2004 Mr Ilchev presented the writ to the financial department of the municipality and requested to be paid the awarded amount. On 9 January 2005, in response to an inquiry by Mr Ilchev, the municipality informed him that no amounts had been earmarked in its budget for the payment of the amount due to him. On the date of the latest information from the parties (19 January 2005), the amount was still unpaid. 40. Ms Metodieva owned, together with her sister, one half of a house with a yard in the town of Nikopol, which she rented out. 41. By a mayor's order of 16 May 1990 the house was expropriated for the creation of a municipal green space. The order, based on section 98(1) of TUPA, provided that Ms Metodieva was to be compensated with a one‑room flat in a building which the municipality intended to construct. Ms Metodieva's sister was compensated in cash. The applicant's share of the house was valued at BGL 567 (that amount represented ½ of the value of Ms Metodieva's and her sister's share of the house, which amounted to BGL 1,133.65). 42. The construction of the building never started because of financial difficulties experienced by the municipality, and it was eventually altogether left out of the municipal construction program. 43. Meanwhile Ms Metodieva's house was pulled down. Instead of a green space, in 1993 an office building for the State Savings Bank was constructed on the plot. 44. Ms Metodieva made an attempt to obtain the cancelling of the expropriation, relying on a 1992 restitution law, but her attempt failed as that law only concerned expropriations carried out before 21 April 1990. 45. In December 1997 Ms Metodieva asked the mayor to issue a supplementary order under section 100 of TUPA and indicate the exact flat with which she was to be compensated. In January 1998 the mayor replied that such an order could not be issued as the construction of the building in which the flat was to be located had not started. 46. In May 1998 Ms Metodieva requested the mayor to set a date when she could select another flat. As the mayor did not reply, she filed an appeal against his implied refusal with the Pleven Regional Court. In a judgment of 16 October 1998 the Pleven Regional Court quashed the refusal and referred the matter back to the mayor with instructions to issue an order under section 100 of TUPA, in which to specify the exact flat with which the applicant was to be compensated. Apparently the mayor did not issue such an order because there were no flats available. 47. In the meantime, on 4 August 1997, the mayor explained that he could not offer Ms Metodieva a flat as there were no vacant ones with parameters equivalent to those set forth in the expropriation order. 48. Ms Metodieva also filed complaints with the regional governor and the Ministry of Finance, to no avail. 49. On 6 July 1998, pursuant to a request by Ms Metodieva, a municipal commission carried out a new valuation of the expropriated house, setting Ms Metodieva's share at BGL 792,000. 50. Ms Metodieva appealed against this valuation and on 13 January 1999 it was quashed by the Nikopol District Court on the ground, inter alia, that Ms Metodieva had not been notified of the procedure. The matter was referred back to the municipality. 51. On the request of Ms Metodieva on 29 March 2000 the Nikopol District Court interpreted its judgment, specifying, inter alia, that the valuation of the property should be made in accordance with section 102 of the Property Act. 52. On 22 June 2000 a municipal commission reassessed the value of the expropriated house, basing its assessment on its market price at the time of the expropriation. The value thus obtained was BGL 1,133.65 for Ms Metodieva's and her sister's half of the house. 53. On appeal by Ms Metodieva the Nikopol District Court, in a judgment of 1 March 2001, quashed the valuation, holding, inter alia, that the new valuation should be based on the market prices at the time it is being carried out. 54. Both the municipality and Ms Metodieva appealed, and in a judgment of 3 June 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the lower court's judgment, expressly holding, inter alia, that the new valuation should be made on the basis of the market price at the time of the expropriation, in accordance with section 102 of the Property Act. The court remitted the case to the mayor. 55. By an order of 23 August 2002 the mayor valued Ms Metodieva's and her sister's half of the house at BGN 1.13, expressly specifying that the valuation had been made on the basis of the market prices at the time of the expropriation. 56. On appeal by Ms Metodieva, the Pleven Regional Court, in a judgment of 13 December 2002, declared the order void and referred the case back to the mayor. It held, inter alia, that both the house and the flat offered in compensation should be valued on the basis of the market prices at the time of the expropriation. 57. On appeal of the mayor, the Supreme Administrative Court, in a judgment of 21 May 2003, quashed the lower court's judgment, holding that the mayor's order had not been void. If there had been irregularities with the valuation, the lower court should have re‑valued the house instead of referring the matter back to the mayor. The court remitted the case to the Pleven Regional Court with instructions that a new valuation of the house be carried out. 58. In a judgment of 19 April 2004 the Pleven Regional Court valued Ms Metodieva's and her sister's share of the expropriated house at BGN 3,225.29. It held, inter alia, that a valuation based on the market prices at the time of the expropriation, which had taken place a long time before, would impinge on the adequacy of the compensation. In the court's view, the valuation had to be based on the market prices at the time of the delivery of its judgment. According to the expert's report drawn up during the proceedings, the value thus obtained was BGN 3,225.29. 59. The mayor appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the valuation of the expropriated house and, respectively, of the flat offered in compensation, should be done on the basis of the market prices at the time of the expropriation. 60. In a final judgment of 27 October 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Pleven Regional Court's judgment and held that the value of Ms Metodieva's and her sister's half of the house was BGN 2,524.50. The court reasoned, inter alia, that a valuation under section 102 of the Property Act had to be based, as a rule, on the market prices at the time of the expropriation. However, no evidence about these prices had been adduced by the municipality. The only data available was that in the expert's report drawn up during the proceedings before the Pleven Regional Court (see paragraph 58 above), which indicated that the value of the property at the time of the mayor's order – 23 August 2002 (see paragraph 55 above) – was BGN 2,524.50. The court instructed the mayor that this new valuation only replaced the original valuation made at the time of the expropriation, but did not change the manner of compensation. Therefore, the mayor had to issue an order under section 100 of TUPA and specify the exact flat with which Ms Metodieva was to be compensated, thus completing the expropriation procedure. However, it was open to Ms Metodieva to request to be compensated in cash instead. 61. It does not seem that Ms Metodieva has since requested that the manner of compensation be changed to cash. 62. Ms Shoileva‑Stambolova's and Mr Shoilev's father owned half of a house with a yard in Sofia, where he and the two of them lived. 63. By a mayor's order of 8 February 1983 the house was expropriated for the construction of a subway station. The order, based on section 98(1) of TUPA, provided that Ms Shoileva‑Stambolova's and Mr Shoilev's father was to be compensated with a flat and that Ms Shoileva‑Stambolova was to be compensated with another flat. Both flats were to be situated in a building which the municipality intended to construct. The house was valued at BGL 39,451. The applicants' father appealed and the Sofia City Court increased the valuation with BGL 947, thus making it BGL 40,398. Thus, the applicants' father's share of the house was valued at BGL 20,199. 64. In 1984 the house was occupied and pulled down. Ms Shoileva‑Stambolova's and Mr Shoilev's father was offered to be settled in a municipal flat in the outskirts of the city, pending the construction of the flat offered in compensation. Considering, however, that the flat was not suitable for his needs, he chose to rent another flat and left the municipal one uninhabited. 65. By a supplementary order of 7 March 1984, based on section 100 of TUPA, the mayor indicated the exact flats with which the two applicants' father and Ms Shoileva‑Stambolova were to be compensated, specifying the buildings in which they would be located and their precise surface. 66. In 1985 Ms Shoileva‑Stambolova's flat was finished. BGL 100 of the valuation of the her father's house was applied towards the value of that flat. The remainder (BGL 19,223) was paid by Ms Shoileva‑Stambolova and she was allowed to take possession of it. However, the applicants' father's flat was not constructed, apparently because the design for the building in which it was to be located was changed. 67. In 1989 the applicants' father requested to be allotted another flat. By a mayor's order of 27 March 1989 he was allotted a new flat in lieu of the one originally intended as compensation. This order, like the original one, specified the exact location and surface of the new flat. The construction of the building in which the flat thus allotted was to be located started in 1989, but was halted soon after, because of lack of funds. 68. On 25 February 1998 Ms Shoileva‑Stambolova's and Mr Shoilev's father died. The two are his only heirs. 69. In 2001 Ms Shoileva‑Stambolova and Mr Shoilev wrote to the mayor. They asked whether there were any plans for the completion of the building in which the flat allotted in compensation would be located. In the alternative, they asked whether they could receive another equivalent flat or cash and, if so, what would be the amount of such monetary compensation. By a letter of 9 May 2001 the mayor informed them that there were no plans to finish the building. Their application for re‑compensation was sixth on the waiting list but at the time there were no flats available. If they opted for cash compensation, the amount which they would be entitled to would be BGN 20.20. 70. On 11 July 2003 Ms Shoileva‑Stambolova and Mr Shoilev were informed that the plan of the building in which their future flat would be situated had been changed and were invited to choose a new flat. They did so on 6 August 2003, which was confirmed by a revised order under section 100 of TUPA of 9 September 2003. The new flat was almost similar in size and position as the previous one. 71. In early 2004 the construction of the building in which the flat was to be situated was finalised and on 26 May 2004 the municipality delivered the flat to Ms Shoileva‑Stambolova and Mr Shoilev.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Shoumen. 10. At approximately 2 a.m. on 31 January 1998 the applicant allegedly took part in a violent incident in a bar in his home town of Shoumen. It seems that the police were alerted about the incident, intervened and questioned some of the participants and the other persons present on the spot, without making arrests. 11. At approximately 7.30 p.m. on 31 January 1998 the applicant allegedly took part in another violent incident in a restaurant in Shoumen. Apparently during this second incident a Mr P.P. was beaten, robbed, abducted and threatened with violence. Later that evening Mr P.P. complained to the police. 12. In the late evening of 31 January 1998 the applicant went to the Regional Police Department in Shoumen for questioning in connection with the incidents. At 11.55 p.m. he was questioned as a witness. He submits that during the following days he was kept under arrest in the police department. According to the Government, the applicant was not deprived of his liberty at that time. 13. On 1 February 1998 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant and seven other persons on suspicion that they had robbed Mr P.P., had deprived him of his liberty and had coerced him to pay them money. 14. On 2 February 1998 an investigator ordered the applicant's preliminary detention for a period of twenty‑four hours, starting to run at 3.30 p.m. on that day, on suspicion that on 31 January 1998 he had committed abduction and unlawful deprivation of liberty, contrary to Article 142 § 2 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”). The order stated that the applicant had been arrested immediately after having committed the alleged offence, in accordance with Article 202 § 1 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”). Despite the applicant's insistence to meet the investigator, he was not brought before him at that time. 15. On 3 February 1998 a prosecutor extended the applicant's preliminary detention for three more days, starting to run from the day of the extension. The same day the applicant was allowed to meet a lawyer. 16. At 3 p.m. on 5 February 1998 the applicant was brought before an investigator and charged with having instigated others to commit unlawful deprivation of liberty in a manner endangering the health of the victim and also to commit extortion through threats of murder accompanied by light bodily injury. The investigator ordered his pre‑trial detention. The same day a prosecutor from the Shoumen Regional Prosecutor's Office confirmed the investigator's decision to detain the applicant. 17. Immediately after the charging the applicant was questioned in the presence of his counsel. The applicant stated that he understood the charges against him. His counsel asked to be allowed access to the case‑file. The investigator allegedly refused. 18. On 11 February 1998 the applicant submitted an appeal against his pre‑trial detention. He claimed that he had not committed the alleged offences and that the accusation against him was not supported by the available evidence. 19. The Shoumen Investigation Service sent the applicant's appeal to the Shoumen Regional Court on 12 February 1998 together with the case‑file. It arrived in the court on 16 February 1998. 20. The appeal was examined by the Shoumen Regional Court on 4 March 1998 in an open hearing in the presence of the applicant and his counsel. Counsel referred to the alleged lack of evidence against the applicant and, in addition, noted that the applicant had a permanent address, a job, and two children. Counsel also presented a medical certificate issued by the Shoumen Regional Hospital which indicated that the applicant was suffering from myasthenia and post-traumatic encephalopathy, for which he had been hospitalised in June 1997, and also from psoriasis. Counsel argued that the latter required better sanitary conditions than those in the cell of the Investigation Service where the applicant was being held. 21. The court rejected the appeal. It held that in proceedings against the imposition of detention it could not go into issues relating to the accusation and the evidence against the applicant, as that had to do with the merits of the criminal case against him. The only relevant arguments of the applicant were those pertaining to his health. The court further held that the applicant had failed to prove that he was suffering from psoriasis and that the other diseases indicated by him were neurological and required no particular conditions of treatment. It also briefly noted that the applicant had been detained under Article 152 § 4 (1) of the CCP and that there were no grounds for releasing him, in view of the impending investigative actions and the ascertaining of the truth. 22. On 30 April 1998 the Shoumen Regional Prosecutor's Office decided to release the applicant on bail, reasoning that the applicant's health had worsened during his stay in custody. In particular, his psoriasis had intensified due to the poor sanitary conditions and the lack of sunlight in his cell. Moreover, the investigation had almost been completed and the applicant had a permanent address and a job, which reduced the chances of him absconding or impeding the investigation. The applicant posted bail the same day and was released. 23. On 19 April 1999 the Shoumen Regional Prosecutor's Office decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicant and to drop the charges against him. It reasoned that the accusation against the applicant had not been proven. 24. After he appeared for questioning in the evening of 31 January 1998 the applicant remained on the premises of the Shoumen Regional Police Department. The following day or the day after that he was transferred to the detention facility of the Shoumen Regional Investigation Service. He remained there until 30 April 1998, when he was released. 25. There the applicant was held in an underground cell with no windows. Its door was made of solid metal, with a small aperture allowing the guards to inspect the cell. There was an opening above the door which was closed with a wire‑net; that was the only conduit for fresh air to the cell. The floor of the cell was nearly eighty centimetres below the floor of the hallway. 26. According to the applicant, the size of the cell was approximately six square meters. During the time which the applicant spent in the cell it was occupied by three to four detainees. 27. One of the walls of the cell was oozy and covered with mould. 28. The cell was lighted by a single electric bulb situated above the door. Its switch was in the hallway and it allegedly remained on twenty‑four hours a day. According to the applicant, the light coming from the bulb was not sufficient to allow him to read. 29. The detainees were sleeping on a concrete platform which was about forty centimetres above the floor level and was covered with wooden planks. The planks were covered only with blankets. There was no bed linen. It seems that the cell contained no other pieces of furniture. 30. The applicant, as well as the other detainees, was allowed to go out of the cell for five minutes two or three times a day – in the morning and in the late afternoon – to wash themselves and to use the toilet. It seems that the detainees could also leave the cell when they wished to write a request to the investigator, the prosecutor or the court. In that case they were allowed to stay in the hallway to write. 31. The size of the toilet room, which was at the other end of the hallway, was approximately six square meters and there were three Asian‑type toilets in it, with no screens between them and between them and the three sinks, with the result that all inmates had to relieve themselves in each other's presence. 32. The detainees had to use a bucket in the cell to relieve themselves outside the toilet visits. They had to empty the bucket and clean it themselves when leaving the cell to use the sanitary facilities. 33. The toilet was also used as a bathroom. The detainees were allowed to bathe once a week, for ten minutes. There was no shower and they had to take hot water from a pail containing fifteen or twenty litres, which they mixed with cold water from the tap. The detainees had to pour water over their bodies with the mugs they were using for eating. 34. According to the applicant, the food, which was served in the cell twice a day, was of poor quality. 35. On the third or fourth day after his arrest the applicant's psoriasis aggravated. His skin got covered with massive eczema. He informed the facility's paramedic about this and asked to have medicines brought from his home. It seems that he had to apply his medication five or six times a day, but was not allowed to keep it in the cell and could only apply it twice a day, during the toilet visits. The applicant alleges that, as a result, he started to develop psoriatic arthritis: his joints swelled, he started feeling pain in his ankles, and could not move the fingers of his right hand. 36. On 17 March 1998 the applicant requested to be examined by a dermatologist. His request was granted. During the examination the doctor found that as a result of the bad sanitary conditions in which the applicant was being kept the rashes on his skin had aggravated. The applicant was prescribed injections, which apparently were regularly administered by the detention facility's paramedic at the door of the applicant's cell. 37. The CPT visited Bulgaria in 1995 and again in 1999 and 2002. Although the Shoumen Investigation Service detention facility was not visited on any of these occasions, all reports included general observations about problems in all Investigation Service facilities. 38. In this report (CPT/Inf (97) 1) the CPT found that most, albeit not all, of the Investigation Service detention facilities were overcrowded. With the exception of one detention facility where conditions were better, the conditions were as follows: detainees slept on mattresses on sleeping platforms on the floor; hygiene was poor and blankets and pillows were dirty; cells did not have access to natural light, the artificial lighting was too weak to read by and was left on permanently; ventilation systems were in poor condition; detainees could use a toilet and washbasin twice a day (morning and evening) for a few minutes and could take a weekly shower; outside of the two daily visits to the toilets, detainees had to satisfy the needs of nature in the cell bucket; although according to the establishments' internal regulations detainees were entitled to a “daily walk” of up to thirty minutes, it was often reduced to 5‑10 minutes or not allowed at all; no other form of out‑of‑cell activity was provided to persons detained. 39. The CPT further noted that food was of poor quality and in insufficient quantity. In particular, the day's “hot meal” generally consisted of a watery soup (often lukewarm) and inadequate quantities of bread. At the other meals, detainees only received bread and a little cheese or khalva. Meat and fruit were rarely included on the menu. Detainees had to eat from bowls without cutlery – not even a spoon was provided. 40. The CPT also noted that family visits were only possible with permission and that as a result detainees' contact with the outside world was very limited. There was no radio or television. 41. The CPT concluded that the Bulgarian authorities had failed in their obligation to provide detention conditions which were consistent with the inherent dignity of the human person and that “almost without exception, the conditions in the Investigation Service detention facilities visited could fairly be described as inhuman and degrading.” In reaction, the Bulgarian authorities had agreed that the [CPT] delegation's assessment had been “objective and correctly presented” but had indicated that the options for improvement were limited by the country's difficult financial circumstances. 42. In 1995 the CPT recommended to the Bulgarian authorities, inter alia, that sufficient food and drink and safe eating utensils be provided, that mattresses and blankets be cleaned regularly, that detainees be provided with personal hygiene products (soap, toothpaste, etc), that custodial staff be instructed that detainees should be allowed to leave their cells during the day for the purpose of using a toilet facility unless overriding security considerations required otherwise, that the regulation providing for 30 minutes' exercise per day be fully respected in practice, that cell lighting and ventilation be improved, that the regime of family visits be revised and that pre‑trial detainees should be more often transferred to prison even before the preliminary investigation was completed. The possibility of offering detainees outdoor exercise was to be examined as a matter of urgency. 43. In this report (CPT/Inf (2002) 1) the CPT noted that new rules, providing for better conditions, had been enacted but had not yet resulted in significant improvements. 44. In most places visited in 1999 (with the exception of a newly opened detention facility in Sofia), the conditions of detention in Investigation Service premises had remained generally the same as those observed during the CPT's 1995 visit, including as regards hygiene, overcrowding and out‑of‑cell activities. In some places the situation had even deteriorated. 45. In this report (CPT/Inf (2004) 21) the CPT noted that most Investigation Service detention facilities were undergoing renovation but that a lot remained to be done. The cells remained generally overcrowded. 46. Despite the CPT's recommendations in the report on their 1999 visit, no proper regime of activities had been developed for detainees spending long periods in the investigation detention facilities. Those facilities did not have areas for outdoor exercise. At some of the establishments (e.g. Botevgrad), attempts were being made to compensate for the lack of outdoor exercise facilities by allowing detainees to stroll in the corridor several times a day. The CPT stated that “in this respect, the situation remain[ed] of serious concern”.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Riga. 9. In 1997 he decided to move from Latvia to Russia. He negotiated a real estate deal with a Moscow-based agent. 10. On 20 March 1997 the applicant withdrew from his bank accounts 250,000 US dollars (“USD”) in cash and asked his acquaintance, B., to deliver the money to Moscow. 11. B. arrived in the Sheremetyevo-1 airport later the same day. He failed to declare the money at the customs checkpoint and was charged with smuggling. 12. On 13 September 2000, the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow found B. guilty of smuggling under Article 188-1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to two years' suspended imprisonment. With regard to the money, the court said in the operative part of the judgment: “USD 250,000, deposited with the Sheremetyevo Customs Board, are to be forfeited to the Treasury as an object of smuggling.” 13. In his appeal against the judgment, B.'s lawyer submitted that the Golovinskiy District Court had failed to indicate any legal ground for the confiscation order. He argued that the money had been included in the case-file as evidence and that no relevant law provided for its confiscation. Moreover, lawfully obtained assets were to be returned to their owners. B.'s lawyer also claimed that Article 188-1 of the Criminal Code did not provide for such a sanction as confiscation. 14. On 25 October 2000, the Moscow City Court refused the appeal. With regard to the money, the court said: “USD 250,000, which was the object of the smuggling, was rightfully forfeited to the Treasury.” 15. On 1 July 2002 a Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged an application for supervisory review against the judgments. He claimed that the smuggled money could only be confiscated if proven to have been acquired criminally. 16. On 18 July 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court refused the application on the ground that a Ruling of the Plenary Supreme Court of the USSR issued in 1978 permitted the confiscation of smuggled goods which had been attached to case-files as exhibits. 17. On 15 August 2002 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged another application for supervisory review claiming, among other things, that the Ruling of 1978 was inconsistent with later superseding legislation. However, on an unspecified date the Deputy President of the Supreme Court withdrew his application.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Opole, Poland. 5. In 1998 the prosecution service filed with the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a bill of indictment in which it charged the applicant with making unlawful threats. In the course of the court proceedings the applicant was represented by a court-appointed lawyer. On 6 November 2001 the trial court held a hearing at which the applicant and his court‑appointed lawyer were present. During the hearing, the court scheduled the next hearing for 4 December 2001 about which the applicant was informed. 6. On 4 December 2001 a hearing took place before the trial court. The applicant did not attend the hearing but his counsel was present. The applicant failed to give any reasons for his absence and the trial court finished the proceedings and decided in the presence of the counsel that the judgment would be delivered on 11 December 2001. 7. On 11 December 2001 the Opole District Court delivered a judgment in which it convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a prison term of one year and six months. Neither the applicant nor his counsel was present at the delivery of the judgment. 8. The applicant did not appeal against the judgment of 11 December 2001 and did not apply for a copy of the reasons of that judgment. 9. Subsequently, the applicant lodged an application for leave to apply for a reasoned judgment out of time. In his application, he argued that his absence at the hearing held on 4 December 2001 was justified because he had been recently released from the detention and on 5 December 2001 he had been assaulted. The applicant also complained that he had not been informed about the date of the delivery of the judgment. On 9 April 2002 the Opole District Court examined the application and dismissed it. The court, in a reasoned decision, established that the applicant had known about the hearing scheduled for 4 December 2001. He failed to attend it without providing any justification for his absence. Therefore, the trial court was entitled to terminate the proceedings in his absence on the basis of Article 376 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court further examined the reasons for the absence submitted by the applicant. It established that in fact he had been released on 22 November 2001 - two weeks prior to the hearing. Moreover, while it was true that the applicant had been assaulted, nevertheless, that had happened the day following the hearing and the injuries sustained by the applicant, according to a hospital certificate, were not serious and the applicant was not admitted to hospital. With regard to the complaint that he was not informed about the date of the delivery of the judgment, the court found that the applicant had not been diligent since he had not contacted his lawyer. The applicant was aware of the scheduled hearing and knew the address and the name of his court‑appointed lawyer. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 16 May 2003 the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) examined the reasons given by the District Court and upheld the decision. 10. On 14 January 2002 the applicant started serving the prison sentence ordered by the judgment of 11 December 2001. 11. On 6 December 2002 the Court received the applicant’s first letter dated 13 November 2002. The letter was sent while the applicant was serving a prison sentence in the Wrocław Detention Centre. The envelope in which the letter was delivered bears the following stamps: “District Court in Legnica, censored on 22.11.02” (Sąd Rejonowy w Legnicy, cenzurowano dnia 22.11.02) and “252, 14 NOV 2002, register number 2738/01” (252, 14 LIS 2002, numer ewid. 2738/01).

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

10. The applicant was born in 1934. He died on 30 December 2004. He lived in Zielona Góra, Poland. 11. In July 1994 the applicant and his wife concluded a contract with E.W. and W.W., the owners of a company W. Under that contract the company was to carry out building work on the applicant’s house. On 24 November 1994 the applicant, considering that the company was in breach of the contract, withdrew from it. 12. On 1 February 1996 the applicant and his wife (“the plaintiffs”) sued E.W. and W.W. in the Zielona Góra Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking compensation for the serious damage to the house allegedly caused by the defendants. 13. On 13 March and 27 June 1996 the court held hearings and heard evidence from witnesses. 14. On 24 July 1996 the court instructed Poznań Technical University (Politechnika Poznańska) to prepare an expert report. The report was submitted to the court on 4 November 1996. The defendants challenged the report on 2 December 1996. 15. At a hearing on 23 December 1996 the Regional Court ordered the experts to revise their report. On 26 January 1997 they upheld their original conclusions. 16. On 17 July 1997 the plaintiffs modified their claim. 17. The court held a hearing on 29 October 1997. 18. On 31 March 1998 the court ordered the experts to supplement their report. 19. The parties filed their pleadings in March, April and October 1998. 20. On 4 November 1998 the court held a hearing. The Government maintained that in the course of the hearing the plaintiffs had modified their claim. The applicant contested this. 21. On 19 November 1998 the court gave judgment and dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs appealed. 22. On 18 May 1999 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court. 23. On 30 September 1999 the Regional Court held a hearing. It decided to obtain a fresh expert report. In the meantime, the applicant had made two unsuccessful applications for his claim to be secured. 24. On 20 February 2000 the expert report was submitted to the court. 25. At the hearing held on 9 May 2000 the court heard evidence from the expert. 26. The Government submitted that on 16 May 2000 the plaintiffs had altered the amount of the damages they had sought. Subsequently, they applied for an exemption from the court fee due for the increased claim. On 12 October 2000 the court refused their application. That decision was later upheld by the Poznań Court of Appeal. The applicant denied that they had altered their claim. 27. On 28 February 2001 the plaintiffs again unsuccessfully applied for an exemption from payment of the court fee for the increased claim. Eventually, on 16 March 2001, the particulars of that claim were returned to them on account of their failure to pay the fee. 28. The Government maintained that at the hearing held on 8 May 2001 the plaintiffs had increased their claim and had stated that they would not seek an exemption from the court fee. However, on 4 June 2001 the particulars of the amended claim were again returned to them on account of their failure to pay the fee in question. 29. The applicant stated that this was not true. He maintained that, in a pleading of 11 May 2001, after the experts had again revised their valuation of the damage sustained, he had indeed extended the amount of the damages sought to 300,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), mostly because he had been forced to do so by the court. He had also sought an exemption from court fees since to do otherwise would have been illogical. 30. A hearing scheduled for 12 July 2001 was adjourned at the plaintiffs’ request. A subsequent hearing was held on 6 September 2001. 31. On 4 October 2001 the court heard evidence from the parties and closed the trial. On 11 October 2001 it gave judgment, awarding the applicant PLN 50,000 plus statutory interest. 32. On 30 November 2001 the applicant appealed against the judgment. Shortly afterwards, on 10 December 2001, the Regional Court ordered him to rectify the formal shortcomings in his appeal. On 8 January 2002 the applicant applied for an exemption from the court fees for lodging the appeal. The Regional Court rejected his application on 23 January 2002. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the refusal; eventually, he paid the court fees on 22 February 2002. 33. On 20 June 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal heard, and dismissed, the applicant’s appeal. Since the applicant refrained from lodging a cassation appeal (kasacja) with the Supreme Court, the judgment became final on that day.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

7. The applicant company is a debt collector. In July 1999, it bought a defaulted State bond and sued the Government for the debt. After several years of litigation, on 10 April 2002 the Moscow City Commercial Court ordered the Government to pay the applicant company 100,000 American dollars (“USD”). 8. On 5 August 2002, the Appeals Division of the Moscow City Commercial Court upheld the judgment, but specified that the debt was to be paid by the Ministry of Finance. 9. On 6 November 2002, the ministry asked the court to stay the enforcement of the judgment until January 2003, because there were no funds in the State budget of 2002. 10. On 19 November 2002, bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings. 11. On 16 December 2002, the court refused to stay the enforcement because the ministry had failed to prove either that it did not have the funds, or that the funds would become available after January 2003. 12. On 7 February 2003, the ministry asked the court to stay the enforcement of the judgment until January 2004, because there were no funds in the State budget of 2003. 13. On 20 March 2003, the court refused to stay the enforcement because the ministry had failed to prove either that it did not have the funds, or that the funds would become available after January 2004. 14. In August 2003, the ministry asked the appeal court to clarify how the judgment was to be enforced. 15. On 3 September 2003, the appeal court clarified that the judgment was to be enforced only once the applicant company had handed in the bond. The applicant company appealed against this decision because the general conditions of the bond’s issue did not require that it be handed in. In addition, the applicant company argued that the judgment could be enforced on the basis of a writ of enforcement alone, and that the bond was to be returned to the ministry only after the enforcement. On 25 November 2003, the Federal Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit dismissed this appeal. 16. On 18 February 2004, the applicant company handed in the bond to the ministry. 17. Subsequently, the applicant company unsuccessfully sought an injunction to oblige the ministry to enforce the judgment.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

10. The applicant was born on 30 August 1958 and lives in Niederselters (Germany). 11. The case concerns the applicant’s repeated placement in a psychiatric institution, her stay in a hospital, her medical treatment and her various compensation claims. 12. The applicant is currently 100% disabled and receives an invalidity pension. She claims to be constantly suffering from significant pain, especially in her arms and legs and her vertebral column. She has spent almost twenty years of her life in different psychiatric institutions and other hospitals. 13. From January 1974 to May 1974 (at which time the applicant was 15 years old), and from October 1974 to January 1975 (when she was 16 years old), the applicant was placed in the children and young people’s psychiatric department at Frankfurt am Main University Clinic for seven months at her father’s request. 14. From 29 July 1977 (when she was 18 years old) to 5 April 1979, she was placed in a locked ward (geschlossene Station) at a private psychiatric institution, the clinic of Dr Heines in Bremen, at her father’s request. There had been serious conflicts between the applicant and her parents, following which her father believed her to be suffering from a psychosis. The applicant’s mother had suffered from a paranoid-hallucinatory psychosis. 15. The applicant – who by that time had attained the age of majority – had not been placed under guardianship, had never signed a declaration that she had consented to her placement in the institution, and there had been no judicial decision authorising her detention in a psychiatric hospital. The private clinic of Dr Heines was not entitled to detain patients who were to be kept in accordance with the Act of the Land of Bremen on the detention of mentally insane persons, mentally deficient persons and drug addicts (see paragraphs 51-58 below). On 4 March 1979 the police brought the applicant back to the clinic by force after she had attempted to escape. 16. During her forced stay at that clinic, the applicant was unable to maintain regular social contact with persons outside the clinic. When she was three years old, she had fallen ill with poliomyelitis, and following her medical treatment at the clinic she developed post-poliomyelitis syndrome. 17. From 5 April 1979 to 21 May 1980, the applicant was placed in a psychiatric hospital in Gießen. She claimed that she had by chance been saved from having to stay there any longer by a patient in the hospital who had given her accommodation. 18. From 21 January to 20 April 1981, she again received medical treatment at Dr Heines’s clinic, having at that time lost her ability to speak and, according to the doctors, showing signs of autism. 19. On 7 May 1991 the applicant received medical treatment at Dr Horst Schmidt’s clinic for neurology and psychiatry. 20. From 3 September 1991 to 28 July 1992, the applicant received medical treatment (stationäre Behandlung) at Mainz University Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, a public-law institution, where she regained her ability to speak. 21. From 22 October to 21 December 1992, the applicant was treated in the orthopaedic department of a clinic in Frankfurt am Main and, from 4 February to 18 March 1993, she was treated in the orthopaedic department of a clinic in Isny. 22. On 18 April 1994 Dr Lempp, a professor of paedopsychiatry at Tübingen University and a member of the federal government’s investigating committee, prepared an expert report at the applicant’s request. He indicated that the applicant had “at no point in time suffered from a schizophrenia-type psychosis” (“zu keinem Zeitpunkt lag eine Psychose aus dem schizophrenen Formenkreis vor”) and that her intemperate behaviour had resulted from conflicts with her family. 23. On 6 October 1999 Dr Köttgen, a psychiatrist, submitted a second expert opinion, again at the applicant’s request. Confirming the findings of Dr Lempp, she considered that the applicant had never suffered from an early onset of schizophrenia, but that she had been in the midst of a puberty-related identity crisis (Pubertätskrise) at the relevant time. Because of the wrong diagnosis given at that time, she had for many years received medication already known to have adverse side effects. As the applicant had had poliomyelitis, she would have had to be treated with the utmost caution. In that connection, the situation at Dr Heines’s clinic seemed to have been particularly serious: deprivation of liberty without a judicial decision, absence of a legal basis for the detention, excessive dosage of medication in order to question the applicant, and methods belonging to “black pedagogy” (schwarze Pädagogik). 24. On 12 February 1997 the applicant, on the basis of the expert report by Dr Lempp, lodged an application for legal aid and an action for damages against Dr Heines’s clinic in the Bremen Regional Court. She claimed, firstly, that her detention from 29 July 1977 to 5 April 1979 and from 21 January 1981 to 20 April 1981 had been illegal under German law. Furthermore, the medical treatment she had received had been contraindicated because of her poliomyelitis. She argued that her forcible detention and the medical treatment she had received had ruined both her physical and mental health. 25. It was only at that time, on 24 February 1997, that the applicant was given access to her medical file from Dr Heines’s clinic, despite her previous and repeated requests. (a) The judgment of the Bremen Regional Court of 9 July 1998 26. On 9 July 1998 the Bremen Regional Court, after a hearing, allowed the applicant’s action for damages, as her detention had been illegal under German law. 27. The Regional Court found that the applicant, who had attained the age of majority, had not been placed under guardianship, and her detention had not been ordered by a district court as provided by the Act of 16 October 1962 of the Land of Bremen on the detention of mentally insane persons, mentally deficient persons and drug addicts (see paragraphs 51-58 below). 28. According to the Regional Court, such a detention would only have been legal if the applicant had given her consent, which had not been the case. Firstly, she had not signed the admission form filled in on the day of her initial admission to the clinic. Secondly, she had not given her implicit consent (konkludente Einwilligung) to her placement and treatment at the clinic. The mere fact that on the day of her initial admission she had come to the clinic, accompanied by her father, did not suffice to establish valid consent (wirksame Einwilligung). According to the private clinic’s submissions, it could not be ruled out that, at that time, the applicant had not been in a position to realise the importance and the consequences of her detention (“es ist ... vielmehr nicht auszuschließen, daß die Klägerin zum damaligen Zeitpunkt die Bedeutung und Tragweite der Unterbringung nicht erkennen konnte”). This was due, in particular, to the fact that the applicant had been given very strong medication from the time of her arrival. 29. On that point, the Regional Court concluded as follows: “Even assuming the claimant’s initial consent, it would have lapsed as a result of her undisputed attempts to escape and the need to shackle her. From these times at the latest, which have not been specified any further by the defendant, it would have been necessary to obtain a court order.” (“selbst wenn man doch von einer anfänglichen Einwilligung der Klägerin ausgehen wollte, wäre diese durch die unstreitig erfolgten Ausbruchsversuche der Klägerin und die erforderlich gewordenen Fesselungen hinfällig geworden. Spätestens zu diesen, von der Beklagten nicht näher vorgetragenen Zeitpunkten, wäre die Einholung einer gerichtlichen Anordnung erforderlich gewesen.”) 30. The Regional Court found that, for the second period in which the applicant was placed in the psychiatric hospital (from 21 January to 20 April 1981), she had likewise not consented to her confinement, as she had shown signs of autism and had suffered from temporary loss of speech. Therefore, a court order would also have been necessary for this period. 31. As the applicant was therefore entitled to damages in any event, the Regional Court did not examine the question whether her medical treatment had been adequate or not. 32. The Regional Court also found that the applicant’s compensation claim was not time-barred. Under Article 852 § 1 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 63 below), the limitation period of three years for tort claims (unerlaubte Handlung) started running only when the victim had knowledge of the damage and of the person responsible for it. The court observed that a victim could only be perceived to have that knowledge when he was in a position to bring an action for damages that had sufficient prospects of success. Only from then on could he reasonably be expected to bring that action (“daß ihm die Klage zuzumuten ist”), regard being had in addition to his state of health. The court referred to the case-law of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) on the subject. 33. Even if the applicant might already have been conscious of the fact that she had been placed in the clinic against her will, it was established that during her long stays in the psychiatric hospital she had been forced to take very strong medication. When she had been released from the clinic, she had still received medical treatment, and she had always been regarded as mentally ill. The applicant had also suffered from serious physical disorders (schwere körperliche Ausfallerscheinungen) and had, in particular, subsequently lost the ability to speak for more than eleven years (from 1980 to 1991/92). It was not until the end of this medical treatment and after the submission of Dr Lempp’s expert report on 18 April 1994 – in which it had been concluded for the first time that she had never suffered from schizophrenia – that she had become sufficiently aware of her situation, of her possible right to damages, and of the possibility of bringing an action in court. Her application for legal aid, lodged on 12 February 1997, had interrupted the three-year limitation period. Her claim was therefore not time-barred. (b) The judgment of the Bremen Court of Appeal of 22 December 2000 34. On 22 December 2000 the Bremen Court of Appeal, following an appeal by the clinic, quashed the judgment of the Bremen Regional Court and dismissed the applicant’s action. 35. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the Bremen Regional Court’s finding that the applicant had illegally been deprived of her liberty during her stay and treatment at the clinic. It noted that the Regional Court had not taken evidence on the issue in dispute. It found that the applicant had conceded in the appeal proceedings that she had to a certain extent voluntarily (“bedingt freiwillig”) consented to her stay in the clinic in 1981. 36. The Court of Appeal left open the question whether the applicant had a compensation claim in tort (Schadensersatzanspruch aus unerlaubter Handlung) on account of her unlawful deprivation of liberty or the damage caused to her body by her medical treatment. In any event, such a claim would be time-barred under Article 852 § 1 of the Civil Code, which provided for a three-year time-limit. The Court of Appeal considered that the applicant had always been conscious of the fact that she had purportedly been detained against her will, independently of the expert opinion submitted by Dr Lempp. She had also been aware that she had allegedly been forced to take antipsychotic medication. Therefore, she had also been in a position to bring an action in court, despite her physical problems. According to the case-law of the Federal Court of Justice, it sufficed to be aware of having suffered damage, without knowledge of the entirety of the damage being necessary. 37. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant was likewise not entitled to bring a compensation claim on a contractual basis (Schadensersatzansprüche aus Vertrag) following her medical treatment. According to the Court of Appeal, the applicant had not sufficiently proved that she had expressly objected to her stay in the psychiatric hospital. Moreover, a contract between the applicant and the clinic concerning the applicant’s medical treatment could also have been concluded implicitly (konkludenter Vertrag). It could not be assumed that this contract had been terminated by each of the applicant’s attempts to escape, which were attributable to her illness (“Es kann nicht angenommen werden, daß dieser konkludent geschlossene Vertrag durch jeden krankheitsbedingten Fluchtversuch beendet worden ist”). In fact, when the clinic prevented the applicant from escaping, it had complied with its duty of care (Fürsorgepflicht). According to the expert opinion of Dr Rudolf, a psychiatrist appointed by the Court of Appeal, the applicant had been seriously ill at that time and in need of medical treatment. 38. Irrespective of this, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the clinic had disputed the applicant’s assertion that she had been detained against her will, so that it remained uncertain whether this assertion was true (“so daß offenbleibt, ob dieser Vortrag überhaupt zutrifft”). 39. Even if a contract concluded between the clinic and the applicant, who had at that time attained the age of majority, could not be presumed, there was in any event a contract between the clinic and the applicant’s father, concluded implicitly for the applicant’s benefit. This contract had run at least from 29 July 1977 to January 1978, when attempts had been made to place her in a different psychiatric institution. 40. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal did not consider that the applicant’s treatment had been erroneous, or that the dosage of her medication had been too high. It relied in this connection on the conclusive expert report by Dr Rudolf. In assessing the opinion expressed by the expert, who had submitted his report both in writing and orally during the hearing, the court thoroughly considered the partly different conclusions reached in the expert reports by Dr Lempp and Dr Köttgen, which had been prepared at the applicant’s request. 41. The applicant also brought an action for damages in the Mainz Regional Court against the doctors who had treated her at Mainz University Clinic and against the clinic itself. She claimed that she had been treated for psychosomatic symptoms, although she had in fact been suffering from post-poliomyelitis syndrome. As the applicant’s medical file concerning her treatment at the clinic had temporarily disappeared, the clinic compiled a substitute file (Notakte) of some 100 pages, to which the applicant’s lawyer was subsequently granted access. 42. In a judgment delivered on 5 May 2000, the Mainz Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that, according to the expert report by Dr Ludolph, chief physician of the neurology clinic at Ulm University, there had not been sufficient evidence that her post-poliomyelitis syndrome and her contemporaneous mental ailments had not been treated correctly. 43. During the appeal proceedings subsequently brought by the applicant in the Koblenz Court of Appeal, the original of the applicant’s medical file was found, and the applicant’s lawyer was granted access to it. 44. In a judgment delivered on 30 October 2001, the Koblenz Court of Appeal confirmed its own judgment by default of 15 May 2001, given on account of the applicant’s failure to attend the hearing (Versäumnisurteil). It upheld the judgment of the Mainz Regional Court. Relying on the expert report by Dr Ludolph and another two reports submitted by orthopaedic experts, the court found in particular that the applicant had neither intentionally nor negligently been given the wrong medical treatment. It stated that the fact that one of the expert reports had been drawn up with the aid of doctors assisting the court-appointed expert did not preclude its use in court. The court-appointed expert had taken full responsibility for the report and had been examined in person in court. Moreover, even assuming that there had been an error in treatment, the applicant, on whom the burden of proof fell in the matter, had not shown that there was a causal link between the error in treatment and the damage to her health. In particular, as there had not in any event been a serious error in treatment, it was not necessary, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Federal Court of Justice, to apply a less strict rule on the burden of proof (Beweiserleichterungen). 45. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Federal Court of Justice against the Bremen Court of Appeal’s judgment of 22 December 2000 and against the judgments delivered by the Mainz Regional Court on 5 May 2000 and the Koblenz Court of Appeal on 30 October 2001. 46. On 15 January 2002 the Federal Court of Justice refused to admit the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the Bremen Court of Appeal. 47. On 5 February 2002 the five judges of the Federal Court of Justice with jurisdiction to adjudicate on the applicant’s case refused to grant her legal aid for her appeal on points of law against the judgments of the Mainz and Koblenz courts. They argued that her appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success. On 25 March 2002 the same five judges of the Federal Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgments of the Mainz and Koblenz courts as inadmissible, the applicant not having submitted grounds for her appeal within the statutory time-limit. 48. On 2 February 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the judgments delivered by the Bremen Court of Appeal on 22 December 2000 and the Federal Court of Justice on 15 January 2002. Quoting the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, she claimed that her rights to liberty and human dignity and to a fair trial had been violated. She argued that her physical integrity had been infringed. She set out in detail the conditions of her stay in the various psychiatric institutions, the hearings in and the judgments delivered by the Bremen courts and explained why she considered that her rights had not been respected. 49. On 19 February 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the judgments delivered by the Mainz Regional Court on 5 May 2000 and the Koblenz Court of Appeal on 30 October 2001, and against the Federal Court of Justice’s decision of 5 February 2002 not to grant her legal aid. She claimed that her right to a fair trial had been violated and argued that she had been given the wrong medical treatment. She set out in detail how she had been treated at Mainz University Clinic, how the proceedings in the Mainz and Koblenz courts had progressed and why she considered that her constitutional rights had thereby been violated. 50. On 6 March 2002 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to allow the applicant’s constitutional complaints. The court argued that the complaints were not of fundamental importance (“keine grundsätzliche Bedeutung”), as the questions raised by them had already been resolved in its case-law. Furthermore, it was not the function of the Constitutional Court to deal with errors of law allegedly committed by the competent civil courts. The applicant’s complaints did not disclose a violation of her constitutional rights.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Cheboksary. He used to work as a manager of a private building partnership. In April 2000 the police charged him with embezzlement. They accused the applicant of having fraudulently appropriated a tractor and a tank truck belonging to the partnership. 9. On 10 April 2000, the investigator in charge of the applicant's case interviewed the applicant and decided to put him in a remand prison. Since the applicant had had a heart condition during the interview, the investigator had to put him in a prison hospital instead. 10. Diagnosed with a coronary heart disease, the applicant spent the next 36 days in hospital UL-34/4. During this time, he was 14 times examined by a cardiologist and once by a neurologist. The doctors treated the applicant with medicines and made laboratory tests. As soon as the applicant's condition had stabilised, he was discharged from the hospital. 11. On 16 May 2000, the applicant was relocated to remand prison IZ-21/2 in Tsivilsk. The parties' descriptions of the prison and of the life in it differ. 12. According to the applicant, prisoners were delivered to the prison in armoured vans. Even though the heat outside reached 30oC, each van carried as many as 30–40 prisoners. The air in the vans was stuffy. Guards clubbed the prisoners and set the dogs on them. The prison building, built in the 18th century, had never been renovated. Dirt-filled floors let no air through. Cells were illuminated with 40 watt filament lamps, too dim to read by. The prison administration confiscated all the medicines the applicant had and gave no replacement. 13. According to the Government, the applicant was delivered to the prison in a van that could carry 22 prisoners. The air outside was cool, 6oC, and the van carried as few as 14 prisoners. The guards used no clubs or dogs. In2002–03 the prison building was renovated: sanitary equipment was replaced, walls were repainted, a forced ventilation system was installed. During the applicant's stay in the prison, all cells were sufficiently lit with filament lamps. Windows were large enough to read and work by natural light. The temperature and humidity in the cells were within the established norms. The prison had a central continuous supply of potable water from its own artesian well. The quality of the water was routinely inspected by a bacteriological laboratory. Every cell had a cistern of potable water. In addition, daily at 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. prisoners received boiled drinking water. The applicant always had a separate bed, a mattress, a blanket, two sheets, a pillow, and a pillow-case. He could have shower at least once a week. After each shower, the applicant received fresh bedding and underwear. Prison doctors treated him and gave him necessary medicines. The applicant could not, however, have any medicines of his own. 14. On his arrival to the prison, the applicant was put in Cell 16, in which he spent half a day. The parties' descriptions of this cell differ. 15. According to the applicant, this cell was in a poor technical condition. Its floor was flooded with excrements. 16. According to the Government, this cell measured 19.3 m². It housed 20 prisoners, even though it was designed to house 10. There was a double‑glazed window of 115 × 95 cm. The window had a 115 × 20 cm window leaf to ventilate the cell. In one corner of the cell there were a toilet and a wash-basin. The toilet was fixed 70 cm above the floor and could be reached by two steps. It was separated from the rest of the cell with a curtain and a tiled wall, at least 1 m high. The toilet had flushing taps and central sewage. The wash-basin provided cold running water. 17. In the evening of 16 May 2000, the applicant was relocated to Cell 49 in which he spent the next 29 days. The parties' descriptions of this cell differ. 18. According to the applicant, this cell measured 15 m². It housed, on average, 35–40 prisoners, even though it had only 20 beds. The prisoners had to take turns to sleep. Sleeping was impossible because the lights were always on, and because the prisoners listened to music and talked day and night. The windows were covered with metal blinds which let through too little light. No bedding, crockery, or cutlery was available. As the dinner table was small, the prisoners had their meals in shifts, often sharing the crockery with the ill. The food was hardly edible. Cock-roaches, ants, rats, mice, and lice abounded. Hot water supply was limited to 20 litres a day. The toilet was fixed 1.2 m above the floor, right in front of the guards' peephole. As the guards were mostly women, using the toilet was a humiliation. The cell was overpopulated, and five prisoners suffered of dysentery. Therefore, the toilet was always occupied. Once in a fortnight, a prisoner could spend five minutes in a shower. Once a day, the prisoners had an hour-long walk in a small yard on the roof of the building. 19. According to the Government, this cell measured 21.2 m². During the applicant's stay, the cell on average housed 22 prisoners, even though it was designed to house 10. There were two double-glazed windows of 120 × 120 cm each. Each window had a 25 × 25 cm window leaf to ventilate the cell. In one corner of the cell there were a toilet and a wash-basin. The toilet was fixed 25 cm above the floor. It was separated from the rest of the cell with a tiled wall, at least 1 m high. The toilet had flushing taps and central sewage. The wash-basin provided cold running water. There were no prisoners suffering from dysentery in the cell. Prisoners suffering from intestinal infections, vermin, veneral diseases, and acute tuberculosis were housed apart. 20. As the applicant's health had worsened, on 14 June 2000 he was relocated to a temporary detention unit, and on 16 June 2000 – back to hospital UL-34/4. He spent the next 36 days in the somatic ward of the hospital. During this period, a cardiologist examined the applicant 13 times and treated him. As soon as the applicant's condition had stabilised, he was discharged from the hospital. 21. On 22 July 2000, the applicant was returned to the prison and put in Cell 18 where he spent the next 2 days. The parties' descriptions of this cell differ. 22. According to the applicant, windows in this cell had no glass. Instead, they were tightly covered with halved metal tubes. Small holes in the tubes let through little light. The cell was located in the basement and had no ventilation. No bedding, crockery, or cutlery was available. The toilet was fixed 1.8 m above the floor. Next to it stood a dinner table. As the cell housed as many as 78 prisoners, the toilet and the table were always occupied, often at the same time. Smokers made non-smokers' life a misery. Whenever someone fell unconscious, guards dragged him out into the corridor for a breath of fresh air. 23. According to the Government, this cell was located in the ground floor and measured 23 m². During the applicant's stay, the cell on average housed 17 prisoners, even though it was designed to house 10. There were two double‑glazed windows of 70 × 70 cm each. Each window had a 70 × 20 cm window leaf to ventilate the cell. In one corner of the cell there were a toilet and a wash-basin. The toilet was fixed 45 cm above the floor and could be reached by a step. It was separated from the rest of the cell with a tiled wall, at least 1 m high. The toilet had flushing taps and central sewage. The wash-basin provided cold running water. 24. On 24 July 2000, the applicant was taken to the temporary detention unit for interrogation. 25. On 28 July 2000, he was returned to the prison and put in Cell 49 where he spent the next 4 days. 26. On 31 July 2000, the investigating authorities dropped the charges against the applicant under an amnesty law. 27. On 1 August 2000, the applicant was released. 28. In January 2003 the applicant left Russia for Strasbourg. The parties' accounts of the events preceding the departure differ. 29. On 20 December 2002, an investigating officer of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chuvash Republic telephoned the applicant. Without naming himself, the officer invited the applicant to an interview concerning a criminal investigation. The applicant was not aware of any investigations. 30. On 21 December 2002, K., a Deputy Director of the Economic Crimes' Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chuvash Republic, telephoned the applicant. He interrogated the applicant about his application to the Court. K. hinted that the applicant had better withdraw his case from the Court, or else the police would find a pretext for a new criminal case and imprison him again. 31. On 23 December 2002, P., the Director of the Economic Crimes' Department, telephoned the applicant and invited him for an interview. During the interview, P. ordered the applicant with gestures to speak low because the room was bugged. Afraid to speak, P. wrote down all crucial phrases and showed them to the applicant. Such precaution not being enough, P. and the applicant continued their conversation in the corridor. P. told the applicant that he would start a new criminal case against him, imprison him, and let him languish to death. P. demanded the applicant to withdraw his application from the Court because it had troubled influential officials of the Chuvash Republic. 32. On 26 December 2002, the applicant's car ran into four lorries. The applicant alleges that the accident must have been set up by his persecutors, because the traffic police ignored it. 33. The accident convinced the applicant that the threats were serious. He and his wife went to Moscow, received French tourist visas, and left for Strasbourg to seek political asylum. 34. The applicant had to leave behind his minor daughter, a student, because she had no travel documents. After the applicant's departure, the police threatened to kill the daughter. She would have joined her parents in Strasbourg, but the parents wished her to finish the studies. As soon as the daughter had passed her first-year exams, she received a travel passport and on 13 July 2003 came to Strasbourg. 35. On an unspecified date, D., the manager of the partnership defrauded by the applicant, requested the police to reinvestigate the applicant's case. He asserted that the investigation had been superficial, and that the applicant had not made good the damage inflicted to the partnership. 36. In December 2002, K. and P., officers of the Economic Crimes' Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chuvash Republic, invited the applicant for an interview in connection with D.'s allegation. Since the officers had failed to record D.'s oral application formally, their superiors warned them. 37. The relevant extracts from the General Reports by the European Committee for the prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) read as follows: Extracts from the 2nd General Report [CPT/Inf (92) 3] “46. Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the CPT's mandate. All the services and activities within a prison will be adversely affected if it is required to cater for more prisoners than it was designed to accommodate; the overall quality of life in the establishment will be lowered, perhaps significantly. Moreover, the level of overcrowding in a prison, or in a particular part of it, might be such as to be in itself inhuman or degrading from a physical standpoint. 47. A satisfactory programme of activities (work, education, sport, etc.) is of crucial importance for the well-being of prisoners... [P]risoners cannot simply be left to languish for weeks, possibly months, locked up in their cells, and this regardless of how good material conditions might be within the cells. The CPT considers that one should aim at ensuring that prisoners in remand establishments are able to spend a reasonable part of the day (8 hours or more) outside their cells, engaged in purposeful activity of a varied nature... 48. Specific mention should be made of outdoor exercise. The requirement that prisoners be allowed at least one hour of exercise in the open air every day is widely accepted as a basic safeguard... It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise facilities should be reasonably spacious... 49. Ready access to proper toilet facilities and the maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential components of a humane environment... 50. The CPT would add that it is particularly concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding, poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet/washing facilities in the same establishment. The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners. 51. It is also very important for prisoners to maintain reasonably good contact with the outside world. Above all, a prisoner must be given the means of safeguarding his relationships with his family and close friends. The guiding principle should be the promotion of contact with the outside world; any limitations upon such contact should be based exclusively on security concerns of an appreciable nature or resource considerations...” Extracts from the 7th General Report [CPT/Inf (97) 10] “13. As the CPT pointed out in its 2nd General Report, prison overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the Committee's mandate (cf. CPT/Inf (92) 3, paragraph 46). An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation; a constant lack of privacy (even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary facility); reduced out-of-cell activities, due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available; overburdened health-care services; increased tension and hence more violence between prisoners and between prisoners and staff. This list is far from exhaustive. The CPT has been led to conclude on more than one occasion that the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention...” Extracts from the 11th General Report [CPT/Inf (2001) 16] “28. The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across Europe and seriously undermines attempts to improve conditions of detention. The negative effects of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous General Reports... 29. In a number of countries visited by the CPT, particularly in central and eastern Europe, inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a daily basis, such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities. The CPT has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when, as is frequently the case, the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions... Large-capacity dormitories inevitably imply a lack of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives... All these problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a reasonable occupancy level; further, in such a situation the excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons will often lead to deplorable conditions. 30. The CPT frequently encounters devices, such as metal shutters, slats, or plates fitted to cell windows, which deprive prisoners of access to natural light and prevent fresh air from entering the accommodation. They are a particularly common feature of establishments holding pre-trial prisoners. The CPT fully accepts that specific security measures designed to prevent the risk of collusion and/or criminal activities may well be required in respect of certain prisoners... [E]ven when such measures are required, they should never involve depriving the prisoners concerned of natural light and fresh air. The latter are basic elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy...”

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

9. The applicants are Irish registered companies. The second applicant publishes newspapers including the Sunday Independent and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the first applicant (formerly known as Independent Newspapers plc). 10. The case concerns an article published in the Sunday Independent, a newspaper with the biggest circulation of any Sunday newspaper and which sold in the region of 250,000 copies at the relevant time. 11. On 13 December 1992 an article was published in the newspaper written by a well-known journalist and entitled “Throwing good money at jobs is dishonest”. The article commented, inter alia, on a recently discovered letter (dated September 1986) to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The letter had been signed by two persons one of whom was Mr de Rossa, a very well-known politician. The letter referred to “special activities” that had previously met shortfalls in the funding of the Worker’s Party, a political party of which Mr de Rossa had been leader. At the time of publication, Mr de Rossa was leader of another political party (the Democratic Left), he was a member of parliament and he was engaged in post-election negotiations about his party’s participation in government. 12. The relevant portion of the article stated that: “Irish society is divided. As the political parties manoeuvre to try to form a Government a clear picture has emerged, revealing the nature of our differences. On one side of the argument are those who would find the idea of Democratic Left in cabinet acceptable. These people are prepared to ignore Democratic Left leader Proinsias de Rossa’s reference to the ‘special activities’ which served to fund the Workers Party in the very recent past. The ‘special activities’ concerned were criminal. Among the crimes committed were armed robberies and forgery of currency. The people engaged in this business occupied that twilight world where the line blurs between those who are common criminals and others of that ilk who would claim to be engaged in political activity. This world is inhabited by myriad groups, some dealing in drugs, prostitution, protection rackets, crimes of which the weakest members of society are invariably the victims. It is therefore, ironic, wickedly so, that a political party claiming to ‘care’ for the workers should accept funding from ‘special activities’ of a particularly nasty kind. There is no doubt that elements of Proinsias de Rossa ‘s Workers Party were involved in ‘special activities’. What remains unproven is whether de Rossa knew about the source of his party’s funds. There is evidence, strengthened by revelations in the Irish Times this week, that de Rossa was aware of what was going on. If one is to allow him the benefit of the doubt, and why not, one must nevertheless have some misgivings about those with whom he so recently associated. Justice demands that we welcome Democratic Left’s recent conversion to decency and indeed, acknowledge that their Dáil deputies are exemplary in the conduct of the work they engage in on behalf of their constituents. Still, questions remain unanswered about the Workers Party’s ‘special activities’ phase, not to mention their willingness to embrace the Soviet Communist party long after the world knew about the brutal oppression that this and other Communist regimes visited on workers, intellectuals and others who would think and speak freely. Proinsias de Rossa’s political friends in the Soviet Union were no better than gangsters. The Communists ran labour camps. They were anti-Semitic. Men like Andrei Sakharov and Vaclav Havel were persecuted. Citizens who attempted to flee this terror were murdered. In Berlin, the bodies left to rot in no man’s land between tyranny and liberty. Is it really necessary to remind ourselves of those ‘special activities’?” 13. In 1993 Mr de Rossa initiated a libel action (High Court) against the first applicant. The first trial lasted eight days: the jury was discharged (following the publication of an article by the first applicant). The second trial lasted fifteen days: the jury failed to reach a verdict. 14. The third trial lasted eleven days and ended on 31 July 1997. 15. In his directions to the jury on damages, the trial judge stated: “... damages are meant to compensate a person for a wrong. ... The only remedy available to a person who says he has been wronged in a newspaper is damages. Damages are meant to put a person, in so far as money can do it, in the position that he or she would have been if the wrong had not taken place. That is the enterprise you are engaged in, in relation to damages.” 16. He then referred to Mr Justice O’Flaherty’s judgment in an unnamed case (which was, in fact, Dawson and Dawson v. Irish Brokers Association, Supreme Court judgment of 27 February 1997, unreported): “ ... in a recent case, Mr. Justice O’Flaherty of the Supreme Court said, that the approach in cases of this kind should be no different from any other type of proceedings. The jury should be told that their first duty is to try to do essential justice between the parties. They are entitled to award damages for loss of reputation as well as for the hurt, anxiety, trouble and bother to which the Plaintiff has been put.” 17. He went on to quote with approval Mr Justice Henchy’s judgment in another unnamed case (which was Barrett v. Independent Newspapers Ltd [1986] I.R. 13) as follows: “It is the duty of the Judge to direct the Jury that the damages must be confined to such sum of money as would fairly and reasonably compensate the Plaintiff for his injured feelings, and for any diminution in his standing among right thinking people as a result of the words complained of. The Jury have to be told they must make their assessment entirely on the facts found by them, and among the relevant considerations proper to be taken into account are the nature of the libel, the standing of the Plaintiff, the extent of the publication, the conduct of the Defendant at all stages of the case, and any other matter which bears on the extent of the damages.” 18. The trial judge continued: “Now Mr. Justice Henchy, in the case he was dealing with, said that the jury in that particular case wasn’t given any real help as to how to assess compensatory damages, and he laid down a guide which could assist the Jury. He considered that in the case in question the jury could be asked to reduce the allegation complained of to actuality, and then to fit the allegation into its appropriate place in the scale of defamatory remarks to which the Plaintiff could be subjected. Now that particular case affords you great assistance in placing the nature of the defamation in a scale, because that case Mr. Justice Henchy was referring to, revolved around an allegation by a politician that a journalist [sic.] tweaked his beard. Now it related to the time of one of the pushes against Mr. Haughey, and after an abortive push against him, everybody was coming out to a crowded area of Leinster House, bustling out, and something was written in the Evening Herald which involved an allegation [that] a politician tweaked the Evening Herald journalist’s beard. Now the learned Trial Judge found that to be defamatory and directed there be an assessment of damages. Going back to Mr. Justice Henchy’s observation, if you examine the words and put them in a scale of things, compare the allegation with tweaking a journalist’s beard, with an allegation that Mr. de Rossa was involved in or tolerated serious crime, and that he personally supported anti-Semitism and violent Communist oppression. It would not surprise me, Members of the Jury, if you went to the opposite end of the scale and even, apart from Mr. Justice Henchy’s helpful observations, I think there can be no question in this case but that if you are awarding damages you are talking about substantial damages. Now as Counsel told you, I am not allowed to suggest to you figures, and Counsel are not allowed suggest to you figures either. I have gone as far as I can to help in relation to that question. I don’t think anybody takes issue with the proposition if you are awarding damages they are going to be substantial. Mr. de Rossa at the time was leader of a political party. The political party was seeking to go into government. Damages will be substantial. It is all I can say to you. It is a matter for you to assess what they ought to be, if you are assessing damages.” 19. The jury found that the impugned words implied that Mr de Rossa had been involved in or tolerated serious crime and that he had personally supported anti-semitism and violent communist oppression. The jury went on to assess damages at 300,000 Irish pounds (IR£). 20. The first applicant appealed the award. It accepted that the jury had been directed on damages in accordance with the law but noted that the trial judge had been therefore obliged to confine his directions to a statement of general principles and to eschew any specific guidance on the appropriate level of general damages. Neither counsel nor the trial judge could suggest any figures to the jury and this practice was inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and of the Convention. Specific guidelines should be given to the jury in such cases including a reference to the purchasing power of any award made and to the income which the award would produce, to what the trial judge and counsel considered to be the appropriate level of damages and to awards made in personal injuries and other libel cases. The first applicant further argued that the common law and the Constitution required the appellate court to subject jury awards in defamation actions to stricter scrutiny so that the test which had been outlined by Mr Justice Henchy in the above-cited Barrett case was no longer sufficient. A court of appeal should ask itself the following question (the “Rantzen test”): “could a reasonable jury have thought that this award was necessary to compensate the plaintiff and to re-establish his reputation?”. The first applicant relied on, inter alia, Ranzen v. M.G.N. Ltd [1993] 4 All E.R. 975, and John v. M.G.N. Ltd [1996] 2 All E.R. 35) and on the judgment of this Court in the case of Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 323). 21. The Chief Justice delivered the majority judgment of the court on 30 July 1999. He began by describing the role of juries in the assessment of damages in defamation actions. It had been conceded by the first applicant that the trial judge had followed the practice in cases of this nature, namely: “...that of confining his directions to a statement of general principles, eschewing any specific guidance on the appropriate level of general damages”. As pointed out by the Master of the Rolls in the above-cited John v. M.G.N. case: “Judges, as they were bound to do, confined themselves to broad directions of general principle, coupled with injunctions to the jury to be reasonable. But they gave no guidance on what might be thought reasonable or unreasonable, and it is not altogether surprising that juries lacked an instinctive sense of where to pitch their awards. They were in the position of sheep loosed on an unfenced common, with no shepherd.” 22. This was explained by the fact that the assessment of damages in libel cases was “peculiarly the province of the jury” As stated by Chief Justice Finlay in the Barrett case (cited above) the assessment by a jury of damages for defamation had a “very unusual and emphatic sanctity” so that the appellate courts had been extremely slow to interfere with such assessments. As emphasised in the above-cited John v. M.G.N. case, the ultimate decision, subject to appeal, was that of the jury which was not bound by the submissions made to it. 23. The Chief Justice outlined the relevant domestic law. He considered that there was no conflict between the common-law and the Constitutional provisions, on the one hand, and Article 10 of the Convention, on the other. Article 10, as noted in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky judgment, required that “an award of damages for defamation must bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered”. He continued: “By virtue of the provisions of Article 40.6.1o of the Constitution, the defendant is entitled, subject to the restrictions therein contained, to exercise the right to express freely its convictions and opinions. The exercise of such right is subject however to the provisions of the Constitution as a whole and in particular the provisions of Article 40.3.1o and 40.3.2o which require the State by its laws to protect as best it may from unjust attack, and in the case of injustice done to vindicate the good name of every citizen. Neither the common law nor the Constitution nor the Convention give to any person the right to defame another person. The law must consequently reflect a due balancing of the constitutional right to freedom of expression and the constitutional protection of every citizen’s good name (Hynes-O’Sullivan. v. O’Driscoll [1988] I.R. 436). This introduces the concept of proportionality which is recognised in our constitutional jurisprudence.” He cited, as the law applicable in the State, the judgment of Mr Justice Henchy in the above-cited Barrett case (see also paragraphs 44-46 below) and considered that a passage therein (the duty of the trial judge to direct the jury to confine damages to a sum as would “fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff for his injured feelings and for any diminution in his standing among right-thinking people”) emphasised the following elements of Irish law: “(a) ... it is the duty of the judge to direct the jury that the damages must be confined to such sum of money as will fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff for his injured feelings and for any diminution of his standing among right-thinking people as a result of the words complained of; (b) ... it is a fundamental principle of the law of compensatory damages that the award must always be reasonable and fair and bear a due correspondence with the injury suffered; and (c) ... if the award is disproportionately high, it will be set aside and not allowed stand.” 24. The obligations arising from the provisions of the Constitution and the Convention were met by the laws of Ireland, which “provides that the award must always be reasonable and fair and bear a due correspondence with the injury suffered and by the requirement that if the award is disproportionately high, it will be set aside.” 25. Accordingly, and as regards directions to be given to juries, neither the Constitution nor the Convention required a change as suggested by the first applicant. The added guidelines recommended by the Court of Appeal in the case of John v. M.G.N. were not based on the Convention but were a development of English common law. Indeed, he regarded the changes brought about by the case of John v. M.G.N. as not “modest” but “fundamental” in that they “radically altered” the general practice with regard to the instructions to be given to a jury as to the manner in which they should approach the assessment of damages in a defamation action. If the approach adopted in the Rantzen case and developed in the John v. M.G.N. case was to be adopted in Ireland, the jury would be buried in figures from the parties representatives and from the judge in respect of both libel and personal injuries’ damages previously awarded, while at the same time being told that they were not bound by such figures. He was satisfied that the giving of such figures, even in guideline form, would constitute an unjustifiable invasion of the domain of the jury. Awards in personal injury cases were not comparable with libel awards and thus he preferred the view on this particular matter expressed in the Rantzen case as opposed to the John v. M.G.N case. Informing juries of libel awards approved by the Court of Appeal would not have been recommended in the John v. M.G.N. case but for the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (a law which concerned the power of the Court of Appeal) in the United Kingdom. 26. On the contrary, the jury must base its assessment entirely on the facts of the case as established by it (Mr Justice Henchy in the Barrett case) and a departure from that principle would lead to utter confusion. Each defamation action had its own unique features and a jury assessing damages had to have regard to each feature. Those features, which could vary from case to case, included the nature of the libel, the standing of the plaintiff, the extent of publication, the conduct of the defendant at all stages and any other relevant matters. Figures awarded in other cases based on different facts were not matters which the jury should be entitled to take into account. The Chief Justice was not therefore prepared to change the traditional guidelines given to juries in the assessment of damages in libel cases. 27. He clarified that this did not mean that the discretion of the jury in libel cases was limitless: “... the damages awarded by a jury must be fair and reasonable having regard to all the relevant circumstances and must not be disproportionate to the injury suffered by the injured party and the necessity to vindicate such party in the eyes of the public. Awards made by a jury are subject to a right of appeal and on the hearing of such appeal, the awards made by a jury are scrutinised to ensure that the award complies with these principles.” 28. The Chief Justice then turned specifically to appellate reviews of such jury awards. He began quoting with approval Chief Justice Finlay in the Barrett case: while the jury assessment was not sacrosanct in the sense that it could never be disturbed on appeal, it had a very “unusual and emphatic sanctity” in that the jurisprudence had clearly established that the appellate courts had been “extremely slow” to interfere with such assessments. He also quoted with approval from the Court of Appeal judgment in the John v. M.G.N. case (at p. 55): “real weight must be given to the possibility that [the jury’s] judgment is to be preferred to that of a judge”. 29. He summarised the impact of these extracts as follows: “Both judgments recognise that the assessment of damages is a matter for the jury and that an appellate court must recognise and give real weight to the possibility that their judgment is to be preferred to that of a judge. Consequently, an appellate court should only set aside such an award made by a jury in a defamation action if the award is one which no reasonable jury would have made in the circumstances of the case and is so unreasonable as to be disproportionate to the injury sustained.” 30. He rejected the argument that larger awards should be subjected to a more searching scrutiny than had been customary in the past. He did not agree that the Rantzen test proposed by the first applicant (“could a reasonable jury have thought that this award was necessary to compensate the plaintiff and to re-establish his reputation”) was the test to be applied, noting that that test “differs substantially from the test which has hitherto applied”. If the Rantzen test were to be applied it would remove the “very unusual and emphatic sanctity” from jury awards and would take away the giving of “real weight” to the possibility that the jurors’ judgment is to be preferred to that of the judge. He concluded: “Consequently, while awards made by a jury must, on appeal be subject to scrutiny by the appellate court, that Court is only entitled to set aside an award if it is satisfied that in all the circumstances, the award is so disproportionate to the injury suffered and wrong done that no reasonable jury would have made such an award.” 31. Applying that test, the Chief Justice considered whether the damages awarded were excessive and disproportionate to any damage done to Mr de Rossa. He recalled that the factors to be taken into account were well established and he quoted with approval those outlined in the John v. M.G.N. judgment (pp. 47-48). 32. As to the gravity of the libel, he noted that the libel clearly affected Mr de Rossa’s personal integrity and professional reputation. It was hard to imagine a more serious libel given the nature of the allegations, the profession of Mr De Rossa and the ongoing negotiations concerning his participation in Government. 33. As to the effect on him, the Chief Justice referred to his evidence before the High Court as to the hurt and humiliation caused to him and his determination to vindicate his personal and professional reputation. This evidence was obviously accepted by the jury and it was easy to imagine the hurt and distress allegations of this nature would cause. 34. The extent of the publication was wide: it was conceded by the parties that the “Sunday Independent” had a wide circulation throughout the State and was read each Sunday by over one million persons. 35. The Chief Justice then considered the conduct of the first applicant up to the date of the verdict, including whether or not an apology, retraction or withdrawal had been published. The lack of an apology was regarded as being of considerable importance, a matter highlighted by Mr de Rossa’s evidence during the second and third trials. The passages cited by the Chief Justice demonstrated clearly, in his view, that all Mr de Rossa required was a withdrawal of the allegations in the absence of which he was obliged to endure three trials to secure vindication of his reputation during which he was subjected to “immensely prolonged and hostile cross-examination” by Counsel for the first applicant and his motives for bringing the action were challenged as were Mr de Rossa’s bona fides and credibility. 36. The Chief Justice concluded: “The Respondent is entitled to recover, as general compensatory damages such sum as will compensate him for the wrong which he has suffered and that sum must compensate him for the damage to his reputation, vindicate his good name and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has caused. Such sum should, however, be fair and reasonable and not disproportionate to the wrong suffered by the Respondent. The jury found that the words complained of by the Respondent meant that the Respondent was involved in or tolerated serious crime and personally supported anti-Semitism and violent Communist oppression. If these allegations were true, the Respondent was guilty of conduct, which was not only likely to bring him into disrepute with right-minded people but was such as to render him unsuitable for public office. No more serious allegations could be made against a politician such as the Respondent herein. Having regard to the serious nature of the said libel, its potential effect on the career of the Respondent, and the other considerations as outlined herein, it would appear to me that the jury would have been justified in going to the top of the bracket and awarding as damages the largest sum that could fairly be regarded as compensation.” The jury assessed damages in the sum of £300,000. This is a substantial sum but the libel was serious and grave involving an imputation that the Respondent was involved in or tolerated serious crime and that he personally supported anti-Semitism and violent Communist oppression. Bearing in mind that a fundamental principle of the law of compensatory damages is that the award must always be reasonable and fair and bear a due correspondence with the injury suffered and not be disproportionate thereto, I am not satisfied that the award made by the jury in this case went beyond what a reasonable jury applying the law to all the relevant considerations could reasonably have awarded and is not disproportionate to the injury suffered by the Respondent.” 37. The award approved by the Supreme Court, IR£300,000, was three times more than the highest libel award previously approved by that court. The award and Mr de Rossa’s legal costs were discharged by the second applicant as were the first applicant’s own legal costs. 38. As to the guidelines to be give to jurors and having reviewed relevant judgments from certain common-law jurisdictions and in the above-cited Tolstoy Miloslavsky case, Mrs Justice Denham was in favour of giving further guidelines to jurors including in respect of prior libel awards made or affirmed by the Supreme Court, prior awards in personal injuries’ cases, the purchasing power of an award and the income it might produce together with the level of award deemed appropriate. There was nothing in principle to prevent comparative figures being so provided: it would not diminish the place of the jury if it was informed of issues relevant to the proportionality of the damages. Indeed, as in the John v. M.G.N. judgment, she considered that such information would enhance the role of the jury since it would be assisted by comparative and other relevant information. 39. As to the required test to be applied by the appellate court, she recalled and quoted with approval the judgments of Chief Justice Finlay and of Mr Justice Henchy in the Barrett case. She saw no reason why, if the Chief Justice in that case was making a comparative assessment of awards, this information should not be available to the jury. She agreed that the appellate court should strive to determine the reasonableness and proportionality of awards as outlined in the Barrett case, but the effectiveness of that appellate review depended on the prior availability to the jury at first instance of adequate guidelines on damage levels. Such an approach, she believed, would enable the system to be more consistent and comparative and would allow it to appear more rational. 40. As to whether the award in the present case was excessive, she noted that there were strong similarities between the present case and the case of McDonagh v. News Group Newspaper Limited (Chief Justice Finlay, Supreme Court judgment of 23 November 1993, unreported): both plaintiffs had a standing in the community and the relevant publications were seriously defamatory. However, the award in the McDonagh case was considered to be at the top of the permissible range. Even allowing for the additional aggravating matters in the present case, it was clear that the award was “beyond that range in the sense that it is so incorrect in principle that it should be set aside”. She considered that the award to Mr de Rossa should be reduced to IR£150,000 and concluded: “In principle it is open to the Court to provide guidelines on the charge to be given by a judge to a jury in libel cases. Guidelines on levels of damages given by a judge would aid the administration of justice. Guidelines would give relevant information and aid comparability and consistency in decision-making. Such guidelines would relate only to the level of damages - not the kernel issue as to whether or not there had been defamation. Thus, such guidelines would not impinge of the area traditionally viewed in common law jurisdictions as a matter quintessentially for the jury. More specific guidelines on the level of damages would help juries and the administration of justice by bringing about more consistent and comparable awards of damages and awards which would be seen as such. Specific guidelines would also inform an appellate court in its determination as to whether an award is reasonable and proportionate. The award in this case was excessive and on the principles of reasonableness and proportionality I would reduce it to £150,000.”

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Osijek. 5. On 15 January 1997 the applicant was dismissed from her position at the Osijek Faculty of Agriculture (“the Faculty”). The decision had retroactive effect as of 27 November 1995. 6. On 17 January 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the Faculty's decision. She claimed to have never been reinstated, as was required by a final court decision from proceedings she had previously instituted against the Faculty, and that she could therefore not have been dismissed. 7. On 12 July 1999 the Osijek Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Osijeku) ruled in the applicant's favour, ordering the Faculty to reinstate her. 8. Following an appeal by the Faculty, on 28 October 1999 the Osijek County Court (Županijski sud u Osijeku) upheld the first instance judgment. 9. The Faculty subsequently filed a request for revision on points of law (revizija). On 3 May 2000, the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) reversed the first and second instance judgments and dismissed the applicant's claim. The Supreme Court found that the Faculty was under no obligation to reinstate the applicant and that therefore its decision was in line with the applicable law. 10. On 28 August 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). She claimed that the Supreme Court's judgment was in breach of her constitutional right to work, of the rule of law and of the requirement that the courts adjudicate on the basis of laws and the Constitution. 11. On 24 March 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint finding no violation of the alleged constitutional rights.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1971 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Peqin Prison in Albania. 9. In criminal proceedings against armed gangs operating during the political turmoil in Albania from March to September 1997, the Elbasan public prosecutor's office accused the applicant of being one of the instigators of an armed gang known as the “Kateshi Gang”. The gang, organised as a military commando, aimed to avenge the murder of their members in conflicts with other gangs and was financed by extorting money from various businessmen in the area. 10. In 1999 the applicant was charged before the Durrës District Court with five counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, one count of possession of military weapons and one count of creating and participating in an armed gang. 11. At public hearings before the court on 25 June 1999, 13 September 1999 and 10 December 1999 the applicant's lawyer, Mr Leli, was present. However, during the period from 10 December 1999 to 15 February 2000 the lawyer did not assist the applicant, nor did the latter have an officially assigned lawyer. The applicant submitted that at the hearings during that period the public prosecutor's office had summoned witnesses against him, questioned witnesses who were present and also produced other evidence against him. The applicant's lawyer had summoned two witnesses on the applicant's behalf but they did not appear at the trial. 12. According to the applicant's submissions, no defence counsel assisted him during the stage at which the parties made their final submissions. In this context, it transpires from the minutes of the public hearings that the applicant's lawyer was absent without reason and that the applicant refused to make his closing defence submissions himself. In that connection, the applicant complained that he had requested the court to officially assign him a defence lawyer, but had not received a reply. 13. According to the Government's submissions, the first-instance court proceedings lasted seven months and 21 hearings were arranged. The court's hearings were adjourned on several occasions as a result of the unjustified absence of lawyers, especially the applicant's lawyer. The latter was absent at seven consecutive court hearings without giving any reasons. 14. In all, only eleven hearings were actually held and ten could not take place on account of the lawyers' absence. the court then ordered the assignment of Mrs Meta, an official lawyer, who was present at the hearing on 28 january 2000. However, the applicant refused to be defended by a lawyer not chosen by him. the court accordingly discharged the officially assigned lawyer and continued the proceedings in the applicant's presence, but without any defence lawyer. 15. By letter of 13 December 1999 the Durrës District Court informed the Minister of Justice, among others, of the misconduct on the part of the applicant's counsel and requested him to intervene in the matter. However, no disciplinary measures relating to Mr Leli were taken by the Tirana Bar. 16. On 15 February 2000 the Durrës District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 17. On 21 February 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Durrës Court of Appeal against the judgment of 15 February 2000. He alleged that during the District Court hearings he had been denied a fair trial in that he had not been assisted by a lawyer during the first two months of the trial. Such a lawyer would have enabled him to prepare his defence and to summon the defence witnesses. He claimed that he had not been assisted even in the presentation of his final submissions. He also claimed that he had been abroad during the period when one or more of the crimes with which he had been charged had been committed, and produced customs stamps in his passport to prove that he had left the country. In his appeal, the applicant did not request the examination of any witnesses. 18. On 19 April 2000 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's judgment of 15 February 2000, while making several changes to the sentences imposed for the different counts. The changes concerned did not modify the sentence of life imprisonment. 19. On 19 May 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, alleging that, in breach of his constitutional rights, he had been denied the right to be legally represented in the proceedings. He complained in particular that, although he had not been duly represented, the District Court had proceeded to examine witnesses against him and to consider other evidence. 20. On 7 December 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision on the following grounds: “The violations alleged by the appellant were noted and redressed by the Court of Appeal without having a significant influence on the substance of the first-instance judgment. During the pre-trial stage and also the trial itself, the accused was granted legal assistance. In the court's opinion, the unjustified absence of defence counsel, in agreement with the accused, in order to adjourn the trial could not have as a consequence the absolute nullity of the District Court's judgment.” 21. The applicant then lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court, relying on Article 131 (f) of the Constitution. On 19 April 2001 the Constitutional Court, in accordance with section 31 of the Constitutional Court (Organisation and Operation) Act (Law no. 8577) of 10 February 2000, decided de plano to declare the complaint inadmissible as being “outside its jurisdiction”.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Harjumaa. 9. In April and May 1997 the Tartu Police instituted six criminal investigations relating to several offences of burglary, the forgery of a passport and the unlawful keeping of a firearm. The applicant, one of the suspects, could not be found. On 26 May 1997 the police declared him to be a wanted person. On 7 July 1997 a judge of the Tallinn City Court (Tallinna Linnakohus) authorised the police to take the applicant into custody for two months when he was located. On 27 October 1997 the applicant was caught and taken into custody. On 23 December 1997 the City Court authorised the applicant’s detention until 20 January 1998. However, on 29 December 1997 the City Court granted his request for release on bail. The amount of the bail was set at 42,000 kroons (€ 2,684). 10. On 12 September 1998 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of having on the same day committed a burglary with three other persons. 11. The next day the applicant’s arrest was approved by a judge of the Tallinn City Court who authorised the applicant’s detention for 10 days, i.e. until 22 September 1998. The court noted that the applicant had a prior criminal conviction and that he was suspected of having committed a new crime at a time when he had been released on bail in another criminal case (see paragraph 9 above) against him, which was pending before it. 12. On 22 September 1998 the applicant was formally charged with burglary. On the same day the City Court prolonged his detention until 22 November 1998 on the ground that he had a prior criminal conviction and could re-offend, if released. 13. In his appeal against the decision the applicant argued that the reasons referred to by the court were inadequate to justify his detention. He had a fixed place of residence and there was no reason to believe that he could commit new offences. Moreover, the reference to his prior conviction was irrelevant, since it was no longer on his criminal record. 14. On 13 October 1998 the Tallinn Court of Appeal (Tallinna Ringkonnakohus) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It considered that, although the applicant’s criminal record had been expunged, the fact of his conviction of theft in 1995 was still a factor relevant to his character. It also found it significant that the applicant had allegedly committed a new offence while he had been released on bail in other charges. 15. On 19 November 1998 the City Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 January 1999 for reasons identical to those contained in its previous prolongation order of 22 September 1998. 16. Following the completion of the preliminary investigation on 13 January 1999, the City Court, by a decision of 20 January 1999, committed the applicant for trial and left unchanged the preventive custody measure. It joined to this case another criminal case against the applicant which concerned further acts of burglary, committed in a group of persons, as well as falsification of a document and unlawful possession of a firearm. 17. At a hearing before the City Court on 19 February 1999 the applicant requested his release from custody, arguing that his health had deteriorated and that he had difficulty eating without proper dentures which had been broken by a police officer at the time of his arrest. His request was refused on the ground of the danger of his re-offending if released. As one of the co-defendant’s had fallen ill, the City Court adjourned the trial hearing. 18. At a hearing on 12 April 1999 the City Court refused another request by the applicant for release from custody, referring to the applicant’s prior criminal conviction and his continued criminal activity when he had been released on bail in another criminal case against him. There was thus reason to believe that the applicant would commit further offences if released. The court adjourned the trial hearing due to the ill-health of one of the co-defendants which prevented him from attending. 19. The applicant’s further requests for release were rejected by the City Court on the same grounds by decisions of 26 May 1999, 22 September 1999, 1 December 1999, 2 February 2000, 30 March 2000 and 31 May 2000. On these dates the trial hearing was adjourned due to the absence of victims, witnesses, defence counsel or co-defendants. 20. On 4 October 2000 the City Court granted the applicant’s request for release, noting that the applicant had already been in custody for over two years, that he had a fixed place of residence and that the parties had not agreed to sever the charges against the applicant from the rest of the case. 21. From the end of the year 2000 until the end of year 2003 the trial hearing was adjourned on several occasions for various reasons. 22. On 22 December 2003, in summary proceedings, the City Court convicted the applicant of burglary, unlawful possession of a firearm and falsification of a document and sentenced him to 2 years, 2 months and 27 days’ imprisonment. The sentence was considered as having been served during the two periods the applicant had spent in pre-trial detention.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

7. The applicants were born in 1929, 1952, 1950 and 1949 respectively and live in the Nový Jičín region. 8. On 18 December 1991 the first applicant and her husband claimed restitution of their real property – a house with land – under the Land Ownership Act, alleging that in May 1985 they had been forced to sell it to the State, represented by the former Federal Ministry of National Defence (federální ministerstvo národní obrany), on terms that had been imposed on them. At the date of the entry into force of the Land Ownership Act, the property was managed by the Military Repair Enterprise (“the defendant”), the authority that was obliged to return the property to them, pursuant to section 5(1) and (2) of the Act. 9. The restitution claim was dealt with by the Nový Jičín Land Office (pozemkový úřad). 10. On 18 September 1992 the Nový Jičín Geodesy Centre (středisko geodézie) issued a survey plan in respect of the land. The plan was, however, found to be incomplete by the Land Office. 11. On 26 September 1993 the first applicant's husband died, and their three children joined the proceedings as his legal successors. In a medical report of 29 March 1994 it was stated that the premature death of the first applicant's husband was directly linked to an illness which had started after he had been forced to leave the house and to abandon his property. 12. On 22 February 1994 the Nový Jičín Land Registry (katastrální úřad) issued a new comparative plan of the land. Four other documents issued on 15 May, 3 June and 8 June 1994 were also included in the file. Two survey plans, issued at the request of the defendant and the Land Office, were produced on 11 November 1994 and 26 January 1995 respectively. 13. On 12 September 1995 the Land Office, having assessed the material in the file and having heard evidence from five witnesses who had been involved in the negotiations for the sale of the applicants' property, including Mr R., who was the defendant's lawyer, declared that the applicants were the owners of a major part of the property. It found that the contract of sale had been concluded under duress on strikingly unfavourable terms, within the meaning of section 6(1)(k) of the Land Ownership Act. 14. The Land Office established, among other things, that, contrary to the law then in force, the first applicant and her husband had not been considered parties to administrative proceedings which had resulted in the adoption of a decision on 20 March 1984 on the location of a construction site. It also established that the purchase price had been determined by an expert, in accordance with Decree no. 128/1984. 15. On 26 October 1995 the defendant, represented by Mr R., appealed against the administrative decision to the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud), which on 9 July 1996 carried out an inspection of the site. 16. In their observations on the defendant's appeal, the applicants challenged, inter alia, the statement by Mr R., who had legally represented the defendant in the past and was acting again as its lawyer in the restitution proceedings. 17. On 9 July 1996 a meeting took place at the site. 18. On 20 August 1996 the Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the Land Office for further consideration. It stated that the existence of grounds for restitution of the property under section 6(1)(k) of the Land Ownership Act had not been sufficiently established. 19. On 13 May 1997 the Land Office again decided, having taken into account further documentary evidence submitted by the first applicant and having re-examined two witnesses, that the applicants were the owners of the property. It examined in detail the circumstances of the sale of the property. It noted, inter alia, that the first applicant's husband had headed the defendant's personnel department and that the defendant had needed his property for the construction of a heating plant and, subsequently, a production unit. It further noted that the first applicant's husband had not been threatened with dismissal or the loss of his job in the event of his refusal to conclude the contract of sale. 20. Nevertheless, the Land Office held that the lengthy negotiations for the sale of the applicants' property or its expropriation, which had started in 1977, had seriously interfered with the lives of the first applicant and her husband, and that the circumstances in which these negotiations had been carried out had undoubtedly affected the health and mental state of the first applicant's husband. 21. The Land Office noted lastly that, according to the record of the negotiations dated 2 February 1977, the first applicant and her husband had agreed to the sale on condition that, inter alia, they would be provided with two three-room flats with garages, and that a one-room apartment in a day- care home would be placed at the disposal of the first applicant's mother. However, in addition to the price to be paid for the applicants' property – which could have been, but had not been, increased by 20% as allowed by Decree no. 128/1984 – the first applicant and her husband had been granted a two-room flat in 1983. Furthermore, a three-room apartment had been made available to their son. In addition, it was noted that the first applicant and her late husband had lived in the house for thirty-four years and that the benefit they had derived from the adjacent land, which they had used for agricultural purposes, had considerably improved the family's economic and social situation. 22. On 16 June 1997 the defendant appealed against that decision. On 1 August and 1 September 1997 respectively the applicants and their legal representative submitted their observations on the defendant's appeal. 23. On 10 April 1998 a bench of the Regional Court, after holding a hearing on 6 April 1998 and receiving the applicants' further comments concerning the case on 8 April 1998, quashed the administrative decision, finding that the Land Office had not proved to its satisfaction that the sale had been carried out under duress. The court considered that it was not necessary to examine whether the contract of sale had been concluded on terms unfavourable to the applicants. It held that, although the Land Office had reached its decision on the basis of the fully established and accurate facts of the case, it did not share its legal opinion. 24. The court noted that from the witnesses' statements and from the documentary evidence which it had supplemented by means of the report of 12 December 1985 on the professional activities of the first applicant's husband, the first proposal for the purchase of the applicants' property had been made in 1977 at a time when the defendant had needed part of the land for the construction of a heating plant. The court observed that on 2 February 1977 the owners had provisionally agreed to the sale and had imposed certain conditions which had to be satisfied before the construction work could be started. Moreover, they had stipulated that the sale had to be completed before the end of 1978. At that time, both the former owners were employed; the first applicant's husband was employed by the defendant in a senior post and was politically active. Their economic and social situation was such that it did not create a basis for a state of duress. Moreover, the negotiations carried out with a view to concluding the contract of sale had lasted eight years as a result of the owners' continuous disagreement as to the fulfilment of the conditions they had imposed and the purchase price, which had finally been increased by 86,000 Czech korunas (CZK) (2,867 euros (EUR)). 25. The court also noted that the purchaser had proved that it had made efforts to meet the owners' requirements when, for instance, it had urged that a telephone line be speedily installed in one of the new flats, had paid the telephone connection fees and had assigned the flats to them even before the contract of sale had been signed. The purchaser had only come up with the suggestion of expropriating the applicants' property after several years of unsuccessful negotiations. 26. Finally, the court did not find any causal link between the contract concluded in 1985 and the health problems of the first applicant's husband, which had begun in 1986 (a year after the contract had been signed), and his subsequent death in 1993. 27. The case was remitted to the Land Office, which issued a fresh decision on 15 June 1998. In accordance with the opinion of the Regional Court, by which it was bound by virtue of Article 250 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Land Office ruled that the applicants were not the owners of the property because the contract of sale had not been concluded under duress, within the meaning of section 6(1)(k) of the Land Ownership Act. The Land Office considered that it was therefore unnecessary to examine whether the contract of sale had been concluded on strikingly unfavourable terms within the meaning of the same provision. 28. On 10 December 1998 that decision was upheld by the Regional Court. 29. On 15 February 1999 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) against the Regional Court's judgments of 10 April and 10 December 1998 and the Land Office's decision of 15 June 1998. The applicants alleged a violation of Articles 11 (protection of property rights) and 36 § 1 (right to judicial protection) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Listina základních práv a svobod). They challenged the assessment of the evidence and the Regional Court's incorrect interpretation of the notion of “duress”. They also criticised the failure of the Regional Court to assess properly the notion of “strikingly unfavourable terms” in section 6(1)(k) of the Land Ownership Act. 30. On 3 March 1999 a judge rapporteur (soudce zpravodaj) invited the Regional Court and the parties joined to the proceedings – the Land Office, the Military Repair Enterprise and the Land Fund (Pozemkový fond) – to submit written observations on the applicants' constitutional appeal. 31. In letters of 11 and 25 March 1999 respectively, the Land Fund and the Land Office waived their status as joined parties. 32. On 7 April 1999 the Military Repair Enterprise submitted its written observations, expressing the view that the applicants' constitutional appeal should be dismissed. 33. In its written observations of 9 April 1999, the Regional Court recapitulated the case-law to the effect that the Constitutional Court was not superior to the general courts and that it was not entitled to interfere with their decisions unless and in so far as they might have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution. It further referred to the reasoning in its judgment of 10 December 1998, and noted that the constitutional appeal had been lodged outside the sixty-day time-limit in so far as it was directed against the Regional Court's judgment of 10 April 1998. 34. On 16 April 1999 the judge rapporteur asked the Regional Court and the Land Office to forward their case files, which they did. 35. On 10 May 2000 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud), without holding a public hearing, declared that the constitutional appeal had been lodged outside the sixty-day time-limit in so far as it was directed against the Regional Court's judgment of 10 April 1998 and was unsubstantiated in so far as it concerned the same court's judgment of 10 December 1998. The Constitutional Court included the written observations of the defendant and the Regional Court on the applicants' constitutional appeal in its summary of the facts. It stated, inter alia, that it was for the competent national authorities to examine whether there had been duress on the basis of all the relevant circumstances of the case. It observed in this connection that it could not examine issues falling within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The court, recapitulating briefly the reasoning of the national authorities involved in the case, did not find unconstitutional the Regional Court's conclusion that the hypothesis that the applicants had been under duress during the contractual negotiations was excluded by the fact that they had imposed certain conditions on which they were willing to conclude the contract with the State, and that someone acting under duress would have concluded the contract on any terms. 36. According to the Government, it appears from the Constitutional Court's case file that on 27 June 2000 the first applicant inspected the documents included in the file and was provided with copies of the written observations submitted by the Regional Court and the Military Repair Enterprise.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

6. The applicant was born in 1931. He died on 19 June 2003. In letters received by the Court on 12 December 2003 and 27 September 2004, the applicant’s daughter Ms T.A. Shvayko informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application. 7. The applicant was a former employee of the “Donetskaya” State Mine (the “DSM”). During his work at the DSM, he contracted an occupational disease. In 1995 a medical commission examined the applicant’s state of health, and he was recognised as falling within the second group of disabled persons, i.e. people with an 80% loss of ability to work. 8. Following his examination by the medical commission, the DSM decided to pay the applicant disability compensation in the amount of UAH 5,573[1]. They also ordered monthly allowances for the applicant, but failed to pay them. 9. In March 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the DSM seeking compensation for unpaid monthly disability allowances. On 26 February 2001 the Torez City Court ordered the DSM to pay the applicant UAH 17,037.19[2] in compensation for the delayed payment of disability benefits. 10. On 28 March 2001 the writ of execution no. 2-932 dated 26 February 2001 issued by the Torez City Court was presented to the Bailiffs’ Service of the Torez City Department of Justice for enforcement. 11. On 30 March 2001 the bailiff issued a resolution instituting the enforcement proceedings in the case. 12. On 18 April 2001 the bailiff attached the DSM’s current bank account and, on 17 May 2001, its property. 13. On 6 May 2001 the Torez Execution Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed immediately due to the DSM’s lack of funds. 14. On 10 October 2002 the applicant informed the court that the execution proceedings were still pending. 15. On 16 May 2003 the necessary funds were made available and, on 19 May 2003, the State Treasury in Shakhtarsk of the Donetsk Region paid the outstanding amount of the debt to the applicant. 16. In accordance with the information provided by the applicant’s representative, he received the full amount of compensation awarded by the Torez City Court on 25 May 2003.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

7. Mr Tomáš Bzdúšek was born in 1926 and lives in Brezová pod Bradlom. Mr Ján Bzdúšek was born in 1952 and lives in Nitra. Mr Svetozár Bzdúšek was born in 1957 and lives in Myjava. 8. By decisions delivered by the Senica District Court on 20 January 1959 and by the Bratislava Regional Court on 13 February 1959 the father of Mr Tomáš Bzdúšek and the grandfather of the two other applicants was convicted of two offences and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment as well as to confiscation of movable property which included, inter alia, gold and silver coins of numismatic value, bank notes and savings books. 9. On 3 October 1991 the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic quashed, in the context of judicial rehabilitation provided for by the Judicial Rehabilitation Act of 1990, the above decisions of 1959 including all consequential decisions on the ground that the conviction had been unlawful. Subsequently the District Court in Prievidza delivered a judgment, on 30 March 1992, by which it acquitted the accused. 10. On 30 April 1993 the applicants filed an action claiming the restitution of the movable property which had been confiscated from their relative. 11. On 19 January 1994 the Bratislava I District Court, with which the applicants had filed the action, found that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case. On 17 May 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed this decision as being erroneous. 12. On 6 February 1995 the Bratislava I District Court discontinued the proceedings. On 31 May 1995 the Bratislava City Court quashed this decision and instructed the District Court to proceed with the case. 13. On 7 October 1997 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed the action after having taken extensive evidence. The applicants appealed. On 13 May 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. 14. In the meantime, on 27 January 1998, the Constitutional Court found, upon a petition submitted by the applicants pursuant to Article 130(3) of the Constitution, that the Bratislava I District Court had violated their constitutional right to a hearing without undue delays. The Constitutional Court held, in particular, that the case was not complex and that the applicants had not contributed to the length of the proceedings by their behaviour. The case had not been proceeded with effectively between 30 April 1993 and 31 May 1995, and undue delays had arisen as a result of the fact that the judge dealing with the case had been changed three times.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}

8. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Bedford. 9. On 5 June 1981 the applicant was convicted of wounding (the deliberate shooting of a police officer) with intent to resist arrest, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 years for attempted robbery and firearms offences. His tariff was set at 17 years. 10. On 8 June 1998, upon the expiry of his tariff, the applicant’s detention was reviewed by a “Discretionary Lifer Panel” (“DLP”) of the Parole Board. At the time of his review, the applicant was a “category B” prisoner (prisoners being given a security classification ranging from category A (most serious) to category D). Life prisoners are normally expected to pass through each of the categories prior to release. While he would therefore ordinarily have been expected to progress to a category C prison before being considered suitable for transfer to a category D (“open”) prison, the applicant applied to be transferred directly to an open prison. His legal representative at the review hearing made it clear that he was seeking a transfer only, not release on licence. 11. Among the material which the DLP had before it were two reports (from Mr Cochrane, the prison probation officer, and Dr Williams, a psychiatrist commissioned on behalf of the applicant) which recommended a transfer of the applicant to a category D prison. Those reports stated that the applicant needed to be tested with a view to preparing him and considering him for release on licence, and that such testing could not take place in a category C prison and needed to take place in category D conditions. They were of the view that the risk to the safety of the public of a transfer to category D was acceptable. The third report in front of the DLP from Dr Narayana, a visiting consultant psychiatrist, was unfavourable to the applicant and neither recommended transferring him to category D nor directing his release. Mr Cochrane and Dr Williams gave oral evidence to the DLP. Dr Narayana did not. The conclusions of the latter were criticised by Dr Williams as being unsupported by evidence or reasoning. 12. The DLP did not recommend that the applicant should be released. However, it recommended that he should be transferred from a category B to a category D prison. Were that recommendation not to be accepted by the Secretary of State, the DLP recommended an early review after 12 months (i.e. in June 1999). 13. The decision letter of the DLP to the applicant of 10 June 1998 stated, in relevant part: “1. The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 requires the Parole Board to direct your release only if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that you be confined. The panel of the Board who considered your case on 8 June 1998 were not so satisfied and therefore have not directed your release at this stage. This decision is binding upon the Secretary of State. ... 2. In reaching their decision that you are not yet suitable for release on licence, the panel took particular account of the contents of the reports which were before them, most of which did not recommend release and concluded that you remain a risk, at least until further work has been done on social skills and enhanced thinking. The panel noted the fact that your representative expressly stated that she did not ask for a recommendation for release at this stage. 3. The panel recommended to the Secretary of State that you should be transferred to a category D prison. They made this recommendation on the basis of the opinions expressed by Mr Cochrane and Dr Tegwyn Williams that while recognising the progress which you have made, and improved behaviour and attitude, further work remains to be done, but that this could more appropriately be carried out in open conditions, which would give an opportunity to test out your commitment in less structured conditions which are closer to the community. The panel concluded, on the basis of the opinions of these witnesses, that the risk of a transfer to category D conditions would be acceptable. 4. The panel preferred the evidence and report of Dr Tegwyn Williams to the report of Dr Narayana. The panel felt that Dr Narayana’s conclusions (upon which the Secretary of State relied) were not supported by evidence or by any reasoning which preceded them. 5. The panel made no recommendation to the Secretary of State with regard to an early review. However, in the event of the Secretary of State not accepting the panel’s recommendation for transfer to category D conditions, the panel would recommend an early review in 12 months time, and would hope that consideration would be given to a transfer to less secure conditions meanwhile. 6. The decision not [to] release you is binding upon the Secretary of State but it is for him to decide whether to accept the recommendation to transfer to category D conditions.” 14. On 29 September 1998 the Secretary of State rejected the Parole Board’s recommendation that the applicant should be transferred to a category D prison. He directed that the applicant should be moved to a category C prison. The reasons for his decision were set out as follows in a memorandum of 29 September 1998: “The Secretary of State has carefully considered all the papers which were prepared for your recent Parole Board review, including the reports from staff at both Full Sutton and Nottingham, your own and your solicitor’s representations and the recommendation of the Parole Board. He is not prepared to accept the Parole Board’s recommendation for your transfer to open conditions for the reasons set out below. The Secretary of State notes the recommendations made by the Board and by report writers, the majority of whom support a progressive move. He notes in particular, your willingness to co-operate with offence-related treatment work and the progress you have made as a result, your improved behaviour and the remorse you have shown. However, he is concerned by references to your tendency, on occasions, to be aggressive, unwilling or unable to consider fully the likely consequences of your actions or behaviour or see how others perceive your behaviour. In considering the Parole Board’s recommendation for your transfer to open conditions, which is generally a time of final testing in more normal conditions as a prelude to release, the Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that you have made sufficient progress towards tackling your behavioural problems so as to minimise the risk of your reoffending, or risk to the public while in open conditions or when release takes place. The Secretary of State notes that you have not been tested in category C conditions. Life sentenced prisoners are normally required to spend a period in the lower security conditions of a category C prison to enable them to adjust to, and experience, a less secure environment before eventually progressing to open conditions. He considers this to be all the more important in your case in view of the very long period you have spent in maximum security conditions, much of which has been spent in segregation units, and notes that you are still held in category B conditions. He also considers that, although you have attended offending behaviour courses, and appear to have benefited from them, that work needs to be reinforced and tested in the lower security environment of category C conditions before consideration is given to your transfer to open conditions. In particular, further offence-related work needs to be tackled, together with continuing work to develop more mature, reflective styles of thinking and behaving and enhanced interpersonal skills. You will therefore be transferred to a suitable category C establishment. However, in the light of the positive reports from staff at both Full Sutton and Nottingham, your next review will begin 12 months thereafter.” 15. On 7 October 1998, transfer instructions were issued for the applicant’s transfer to HMP Ranby, a Category C prison. This was endorsed as a "priority career move" in view of the need for a review of the applicant’s continued detention to commence twelve months after transfer. 16. On 14 October 1998, the applicant submitted a complaint/request form objecting to the transfer to HMP Ranby as inconvenient for social visits and stating his preferences for other category C prisons. 17. In December 1998, it was decided to move the applicant to HMP Wayland (category C) and the applicant was informed that the other prisons which he had listed were either unsuitable or had long waiting lists. At this time no place at Wayland was immediately available: he was fifth on the list. 18. On 1 April 1999, the applicant was moved to Wayland. 19. On 3 November 1999 the applicant’s application for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to reclassify him from a category B to a category D prisoner was dismissed by the High Court. This was on the basis that there had not been any procedural irregularity in the decision-making process. During the course of his judgment, Mr Justice Jowitt said the following: “It is clear that the decision which the Secretary of State had to make in this case was an important one. It was important because such a decision has a potential to affect the release date of a prisoner in that delay in transfer to category D has the potential to delay of release on parole.” 20. Mr Justice Jowitt also made, inter alia, the following observations: (a) there had not been any finding by the DLP that there would be a regression in the behaviour or the attitude of the applicant were he to be placed in a category C prison; (b) the DLP had taken “an unusual course” in recommending that the applicant should be transferred from a category B to a category D prison, as, ordinarily, a life prisoner would pass through the categories from which he had started, therefore going through category C into category D; (c) counsel for the applicant had not suggested that the decision of the Secretary of State not to accede to the recommendation of the DLP was open to attack other than on procedural grounds. 21. The applicant did not seek leave to appeal and was advised that he did not have any right of appeal against the judgment of the High Court. 22. The applicant’s subsequent review by the DLP took place at an oral hearing on 25 April 2000, over 12 months after his arrival in category C conditions and over 22 months after his previous review in June 1998. On that occasion, the DLP decided not to direct his release, but recommended that he should be transferred to open conditions. Its decision letter to the applicant of 2 May 2000 stated, inter alia, as follows: “5. Until your arrival at Wayland you had been in conditions of greater security. During your year at Wayland the panel accepts that you have continued to make progress and your behaviour has been good. You have done all that has been required by your sentence plan and you have made sufficient progress towards tackling your offending behaviour to justify your move to open conditions. So far as risk is concerned, however, you have experienced testing only in closed conditions. 6. Having regard to your serious offending, your behaviour in prison up to May 1994 and the fact that you have never been tested in open conditions, the panel considers that your risk is not as yet sufficiently reduced to justify your immediate release. 7. ... Most report writers recommended you for open conditions but not for release. Until you have been tested in open conditions the panel cannot be satisfied that your risk is sufficiently reduced for your release. 9. Your move to open conditions is needed primarily to test further your motivation to remain of good behaviour and your ability to cope with stress and frustration and to enable you to be gradually reintroduced to life in the community outside prison. ... In view of the fact that in June 1998 you were recommended as suitable for release and your progress since then, the panel recommended that you should move to open conditions at the earliest opportunity. Although several report writers recommended a review after 12 months from your arrival in open conditions the panel considered that this period was probably insufficient to enable you to complete the testing which you need and therefore made no recommendation for an early review.” 23. The recommendation that the applicant be moved to open conditions was accepted by the Secretary of State on 24 July 2000. 24. At the applicant’s subsequent review on 30 April 2002, the DLP was satisfied that it was no longer necessary for the protection of public that he be detained and therefore directed his release from prison.

{'10': 0, '11': 1, '12': 2, '13': 3, '14': 4, '15': 5, '17': 6, '18': 7, '2': 8, '3': 9, '34': 10, '38': 11, '39': 12, '4': 13, '46': 14, '5': 15, '6': 16, '7': 17, '8': 18, '9': 19, 'P1-1': 20, 'P1-2': 21, 'P1-3': 22, 'P12-1': 23, 'P3-1': 24, 'P4-2': 25, 'P4-4': 26, 'P6-3': 27, 'P7-1': 28, 'P7-2': 29, 'P7-3': 30, 'P7-4': 31, 'P7-5': 32}

{0: '10', 1: '11', 2: '12', 3: '13', 4: '14', 5: '15', 6: '17', 7: '18', 8: '2', 9: '3', 10: '34', 11: '38', 12: '39', 13: '4', 14: '46', 15: '5', 16: '6', 17: '7', 18: '8', 19: '9', 20: 'P1-1', 21: 'P1-2', 22: 'P1-3', 23: 'P12-1', 24: 'P3-1', 25: 'P4-2', 26: 'P4-4', 27: 'P6-3', 28: 'P7-1', 29: 'P7-2', 30: 'P7-3', 31: 'P7-4', 32: 'P7-5'}