Datasets:

Eugleo

/

echr-outcomes

like 0

6. The applicants, all of whom are Moldovan citizens, live in the Republic of Moldova. They were born in 1961, 1946, 1939, 1946, 1946 and 1951 respectively. 7. In 1994 each applicant concluded a contract with ASITO (an insurance company incorporated in Moldova), according to the terms of which he or she paid an insurance premium in exchange for an annuity pension. The size of the monthly pensions varied between 200 Moldovan lei (MDL) and MDL 600 (between the equivalent of 45 United States dollars (USD) and USD 135 at the time). 8. On different dates between 1999 and 2001 ASITO stopped paying the pensions, in some cases, or refused to start paying them, in other cases, invoking a change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova and calling for the termination of the contracts. 9. On unspecified dates in 2001, the applicants brought civil actions against ASITO, seeking the payment of the pension arrears to date and requiring the company to abide by the contracts of 1994. 10. All the applicants obtained final and enforceable judgments between 2001 and 2002, by which the domestic courts ordered ASITO to pay the pension arrears and to resume the execution of the contracts. The courts found the contracts to be valid and dismissed ASITO’s requests to terminate them or to exempt it from abiding by them on the ground of force majeure, which in ASITO’s view was constituted by the economic crisis, inflation and the change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova. The Court was not presented with information on whether those judgments were complied with by ASITO. 11. On 14 December 2001 the Prosecutor General lodged an “appeal in the interest of the law” with the Supreme Court of Justice. According to the Prosecutor General, the appeal had the purpose of clarifying the controversy surrounding the contracts and of setting a uniform practice for all courts. 12. On 11 March 2002, the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice issued a judgment deciding the dispute between ASITO and the pension beneficiaries in favour of the former. In particular, it ruled that the economic crisis, inflation and the change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova could be relied upon by ASITO in order unilaterally to avoid the annuity contracts. It also ruled that its judgment was binding on all the courts, although it could not, however, affect already existing judgments and it could not be used against the parties to proceedings which had already been decided. 13. Subsequently, on different dates, ASITO brought civil actions against the applicants asking for the termination of the contracts concluded in 1994. It relied on the same arguments as in the first sets of proceedings and also the judgment of the Plenary Supreme Court of 11 March 2002. 14. Between December 2002 and June 2003 ASITO obtained final favourable judgments against all the applicants. The courts dismissed the applicants’ submissions to the effect that the matter of the unilateral denunciation of the contracts by ASITO on grounds of hardship had already been resolved by final judgments and found instead that the subject matter of the proceedings which had ended in final judgments favourable to the applicants had been different, because those proceedings had been concerned with the enforcement of the annuity contracts up to the moment of their termination, while the subject matter of the new proceedings was the termination of the contracts. 15. On 25 October 2004, after the Court communicated the present cases to the Government, the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice upheld a revision request lodged against its judgment of 11 March 2002 by a group of ASITO pensioners who are not applicants in the present cases. The Supreme Court quashed its previous judgment while finding inter alia that ASITO could not rely on the economic crisis, inflation and the change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova for avoiding its annuity contracts.

5. The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Taganrog, in the Rostov Region. 6. On 15 June 1998 a prosecutor opened a criminal investigation against the applicant. 7. On 18 December 1998 the applicant was arrested and allegedly beaten up by police officers. On 19 December 2002 the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. 8. On 15 December 1999 she was released on bail. 9. On 14 March 2000 the Rostov Regional Court received the case file and commenced the trial against the applicant and four other persons. 10. On 13 June 2000 the Rostov Regional Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and extortion and conditionally sentenced her to five years' imprisonment. However, on 2 November 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. 11. On 14 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court found the applicant guilty of fraud, extortion, robbery, kidnapping, and theft and sentenced her to seven and a half years' imprisonment. She was taken into custody from the courtroom. 12. On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 14 May 2001 on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The applicant was remanded in custody pending the determination of the criminal charges against her. 13. On 1 July 2002 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 October 2002. It found as follows: “The defendants [the applicant and four other persons] are charged with kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty, burglary and other crimes. They have been in custody: ..., [the applicant] – since 18 December 1998, ... The Prosecutor requested that the defendants' detention be extended by 3 months. Having examined the Prosecutor's request, and having heard the parties to the proceedings, the court considers it necessary to extend the defendants' detention by 3 months, that is, until 1 October 2002 inclusive, because they are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences. Under Articles 255 and 256 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendants' detention on remand is extended by 3 (three) months, that is, from 1 July 2002 to 1 October 2002.” 14. On 6 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the extension order, finding that it was sufficiently justified. 15. On 1 October and 31 December 2002 and 31 March, 26 June, 25 September and 15 December 2003 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 January, 31 March, 30 June, 26 September, 25 December 2003 and 15 March 2004 respectively. The wording of the decisions was identical to that applied in the decision of 1 July 2002. 16. The applicant appealed against each of the above-mentioned extension orders to the Supreme Court, arguing that they were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration her individual situation. On 12 February, 14 May, 16 July, 16 October and 24 December 2003 and 31 March 2004 respectively, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above-mentioned decisions on appeal. 17. In the meantime, on 19 February 2004 the Rostov Regional Court extended the defendants' pre-trial detention until 19 May 2004, citing the gravity of the charges against them. The applicant appealed against the extension to the Supreme Court. 18. On 10 March 2005, that is, after the applicant's conviction by the Regional Court (see paragraph 20 below), the Supreme Court of Russia discontinued the examination of the applicant's appeal because she had been convicted by the Regional Court in the interim. 19. As regards the trial proceedings in the period from 27 February 2002 to 25 February 2004, the case was adjourned on over forty-two occasions: at the request of the applicant and her co-defendants, who wished to study the case file or the records of the hearings; at the requests of the applicant and her co-defendants for the replacement of their representatives and the need for their newly appointed representatives to study the case file; due to the illness of the defendants' representatives and their failure to appear before the court; and due to the illness of the applicant and co-defendants or following complaints made by them concerning their health. On one occasion the hearing was adjourned due to the failure of the authorities to transport the defendants to the courtroom. 20. On 17 May 2004 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of multiple counts of fraud, multiple counts of kidnapping, extortion, theft and robbery and sentenced her to five years' imprisonment. 21. The applicant lodged an appeal. She claimed, in particular, that lay judges had sat on the bench unlawfully. The law had been changed and after 1 January 2004 lay judges were no longer permitted to take part in the administration of justice. 22. On 10 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held an appeal hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal as unsubstantiated. As to her allegations about the allegedly unlawful composition of the tribunal, the court found that the trial had begun before 1 January 2004 and that the participation of two lay judges in the determination of the criminal charges against her had been in accordance with the principle of continuity of the trial. 23. From 14 May 2001 to 17 May 2005 the applicant had been held in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don (Следственный Изолятор ИЗ-61/1 Главного управления Федеральной службы исполнения наказаний по Ростовской области). Throughout this period the applicant had been held in the following cells: (a) cell no. 181 measuring 25.5 square metres and designed to accommodate 7 detainees; (b) cell no. 184 measuring 36.8 square metres and designed to accommodate 10 detainees; (c) cell no. 186 measuring 24.8 square metres and designed to accommodate 7 detainees; (d) cell no. 191 measuring 34.6 square metres and designed to accommodate 9 detainees; and (e) cell no. 84 (punishment cell) measuring 6.5 square metres and designed for one person. (a) The Government's account 24. The design capacity of the cells had not been exceeded. 25. In each cell the applicant had an individual bed and had been provided with bedding (a mattress, a pillow, a blanket, two bed sheets and a pillowcase), personal hygiene items, tableware, potable water and cleaning supplies. 26. Each cell had two windows measuring 1.14 by 1.32 meters, which allowed sufficient access of daylight. The cells had been equipped with filament lamps (four lamps per regular cell, one lamp per punishment cell) and security lights. The level of artificial lighting had corresponded to established sanitary norms and had allowed the inmates to read and write. 27. All cells had been ventilated by a system of extractor fans. Natural ventilation through windows had also been available. 28. The applicant had received food of adequate quality and quantity in accordance with established legal norms. 29. In support of their observations the Government provided several certificates issued by the director of IZ-61/1 in November 2006 and photographs of the cells in which the applicant had been held. (b) The applicant's account 30. The cells in which the applicant had been held had always been overcrowded. They had accommodated up to twenty inmates at any given time. The inmates had slept in shifts. 31. The cells had been dimly lit by two filament lamps. Access to natural light had been limited because the windows had been heavily barred from both the inside and outside. It had been impossible to read or write in such light. The outside grids on the windows had not been removed until April 2003. 32. There had been no vents in the windows, and therefore, no access to fresh air. The air in the cells had always been stiff and heavy with smoke. Starting from April 2003 the window panes had been taken out in spring until late autumn. 33. Food had been scarce and of poor quality. The complaints raised by the applicant and other inmates in this regard had been to no avail. 34. The applicant had never been provided with any personal hygiene items. 35. The applicant claimed that the photographs of the cells in question provided by the Government had been taken after her departure from IZ‑61/1 and apparently after emergency repairs. 36. The Government submitted that the holding cells (конвойное помещение) of the Rostov Regional Court had been situated in the semi‑basement of the premises. The holding cells area had contained eight individual cells measuring four square metres and three collective cells measuring twenty square metres. The holding cells area had been equipped with one lavatory pan shared by the detainees and the wardens. All cells had been equipped with extractor fans. They had been illuminated with filament lamps. 37. The detainees had been provided with dry rations (сухой паек) when taken to the courthouse. They had received hot food in accordance with a schedule before their departure from, and after their return to, the detention facility. 38. The Government supported their submissions with certificates issued by the director of IZ‑61/1 on 26 November and 30 November 2006 and photographs of the holding cells area of the Rostov Regional Court (showing the corridor passage with barred doors and the bathroom unit). (b) The applicant's account 39. At the courthouse the applicant had been detained in a badly lit damp windowless cell measuring one square meter without ventilation or heating. The furnishing of the cell had consisted of a small bench. The walls in the cell had been coated with “shuba”, a sort of abrasive concrete lining. The cell had not been equipped with a lavatory or a wash basin. The applicant had been obliged to beg the wardens to take her to the lavatory. 40. On the days of court hearings, the applicant had been taken to the “assembly section” of the detention facility before breakfast, and on most occasions she had been taken back to the detention facility after dinnertime had already passed. She had never been given any dry rations to take with her to the courthouse, and she had never seen other detainees receive any. The applicant's relatives had not been allowed to supply her with food on the days of court hearings. 41. The applicant noted that the Government had not provided photographs of the cells of the court's holding cells area. 42. On 15 October 1998 the applicant authorised Mr A. to sell her flat. On 29 December 1998 Mr A. sold the applicant's flat. The transfer of title to the flat was subsequently registered by the regional registrar's office. 43. On 18 March 2003 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings against the registrar on suspicion of an allegedly fraudulent sale of the applicant's flat. The applicant was also informed of the right to contest the sale before a civil court.

5. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Baku. 6. He was the Deputy Chairman of the Musavat Party. He also worked as a columnist for the Yeni Musavat newspaper. 7. On 23 January 2013 rioting broke out in the town of Ismayilli, located to the northwest of Baku. According to media reports quoting local residents, the rioting was sparked by an incident involving V.A., the son of the Minister for Labour and Social Protection and nephew of the Head of the Ismayilli District Executive Authority (“the IDEA”). It was claimed that after being involved in a car accident, V.A. had insulted and physically assaulted passengers travelling in the other car involved in the accident, who were local residents. On hearing of the incident, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of local residents took to the streets and destroyed a number of commercial establishments and other properties in Ismayilli thought to be owned by V.A.’s family. 8. On 24 January 2013 the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General’s Office issued a joint press statement, placing the blame for the rioting on E.S., a hotel manager, and his relative E.M., who had allegedly been drunk and who, it was claimed, had committed acts of hooliganism by damaging local residents’ property and inciting people to riot. 9. On 24 January 2013 the Yeni Musavat newspaper decided to send the applicant on a mission to Ismayilli to cover the events in question. A mission order (no. 28) was issued in this respect by the Yeni Musavat for the period from 24 to 25 January 2013. 10. On 24 January 2013 the applicant travelled to Ismayilli with three other persons. He arrived there in the afternoon. In the city centre he saw Ilgar Mammadov, the Chairman of the Republican Alternative Civic Movement (“REAL”), who was also visiting the town separately from the applicant. They stopped to greet each other and immediately went their separate ways. 11. Approximately twenty minutes after his arrival in the town, the applicant was arrested by the police and was taken to the local police station. In the police station the applicant was ordered to leave Ismayilli and was sent to Baku in his own car accompanied by a police car. 12. The Government did not submit any comment in respect of the applicant’s submissions. 13. On 29 January 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a further joint press statement concerning the events in Ismayilli. It stated that ten people had been charged with criminal offences in connection with the events of 23 January 2013 and they had been detained pending trial. In addition, fifty-two people had been arrested in connection with their participation in “actions causing a serious breach of public order”; some of them had been convicted of “administrative offences” and sentenced to a few days’ “administrative detention” or a fine, while others had been released. The statement further noted that “lately, biased and partial information has been deliberately disseminated, distorting the true nature of these events which were the result of hooliganism”, including information about the large numbers of injured people and the disappearance of one individual. The statement refuted that information, highlighting that only four people had been admitted to the regional hospital with injuries and that no one had disappeared. It further stated, inter alia, the following: “Following the carrying out of enquiries, it has been established that on 24 January 2013 the Deputy Chairman of the Musavat Party, Tofig Yagublu, and the co‑Chairman of the REAL Movement, Ilgar Mammadov, went to Ismayilli and made appeals to local residents with a view to engendering social and political destabilisation. These included calls to resist the police, not to obey officials and to block roads. Their illegal actions, which were calculated to inflame the situation in the country, will be fully and thoroughly investigated and receive legal assessment.” 14. On 1 February 2013 the applicant was questioned as a witness by an investigator at the Serious Crimes Department (“the SCD”) of the Prosecutor General’s Office in connection with the Ismayilli events. After the questioning ended, he left the premises of the SCD and returned home. Despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings in question, the Government failed to provide the Court with a copy of the record of the questioning. 15. On 4 February 2013 the applicant was again questioned by the investigator. Moreover, according to the applicant, face-to-face confrontations were held between the applicant and two persons, R.N. and I.M., who attested that the applicant had incited protesters to throw stones at and to disobey the police. The applicant rejected the accusations against him submitting that they were false and fabricated. 16. Despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings in question, the Government failed to provide the Court with a copy of the record of the questioning, or of the face-to-face confrontations between the applicant and R.N. and I.M. These confrontations were not mentioned in the official charges against the applicant (see paragraph 17 below) or in any other official document made available to the Court by the parties relating to the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 17. On the same day the applicant was charged with criminal offences under Articles 233 (organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or health) of the Criminal Code. The specific acts attributed to the applicant were described as follows in the investigator’s decision of 4 February 2013: “Beginning at around 3 p.m. on 24 January 2013, Yagublu Tofig Rashid oglu, having taken advantage of the fact that from around 9.30 p.m. on 23 January 2013 a group of persons in the town of Ismayilli had engaged in acts of malicious hooliganism causing a serious breach of public order, had deliberately burned, in a publicly dangerous manner, property belonging to various persons [including] the Chirag Hotel, four cars, five mopeds and scooters, and an auxiliary building located in the yard of a private residential house, and had committed acts of violence against Government officials, having, in his false way of thinking, considered [the above events] as a ‘rebellion’, aiming to make the above acts develop and acquire a continuous character in order to create artificial tension and to violate the social and political stability in the country, being a resident of Baku, arrived in Ismayilli and, together with Mammadov Ilgar Eldar oglu and with the active participation of others, [committed the following:] organised, as an active participant, acts causing a serious breach of public order, by means of openly and repeatedly inciting town residents [E.I.], [M.A.] and others, who had gathered at the square near the administrative building of the Regional Education Department located on the Nariman Narimanov Street opposite to the administrative building of [the IDEA], [to do the following:] [i] to enter in masses into the area in front of the building of [the IDEA], which is the competent body of the executive power of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and by doing so to create difficulties for the movement of traffic and pedestrians, [ii] to disobey the lawful demands to disperse, made by Government officials wanting to stop their illegal behaviour, [iii] to resist uniformed police officers protecting the public order, by way of committing violent acts posing danger to [police officers’] life and health, using various objects, [iv] to disrupt the normal functioning of [the IDEA], State enterprises, bodies and organisations, as well as public-catering, commercial and public-service facilities, by way of refusing to leave, for a long period of time, the areas where the acts seriously breaching the public order were being committed, and [v] to stop the movement of traffic, by way of blocking the central avenue and the Nariman Narimanov Street, and was finally able to achieve that, at around 5 p.m. of the same day in the town of Ismayilli, a group of persons consisting of [E.I.], [M.A.] and others had marched in masses from the mentioned square in the direction of the administrative building of [the IDEA] and had thrown stones at officers of the relevant bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs who were preventing [this march] in accordance with the requirements of the law. By these actions, Yagublu Tofig Rashid oglu committed the criminal offences under Articles 233 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.” 18. On 4 February 2013 the prosecutor lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri) in respect of the applicant. Despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings in question, the Government failed to provide the Court with a copy of the prosecutor’s request. 19. On the same day a hearing was held before the Nasimi District Court in the presence of the applicant, his lawyer, an investigator and a prosecutor. It appears from the court decision that at the hearing, to explain the necessity of pre-trial detention, the investigator and the prosecutor gave reasons such as the likelihood of the applicant absconding from and obstructing the investigation, and the nature of the criminal acts attributed to him. However, they did not refer to any evidence implicating the applicant in the events in Ismayilli. The applicant and his lawyer submitted that the accusation against the applicant was groundless and was not supported by any evidence. In particular, the applicant submitted that he had visited Ismayilli as a journalist to cover the events there and he had spent only thirty minutes in total in the town. He also stated that he had had no other link to the events in question. The applicant’s lawyer stated that there were no reasons to believe that the applicant would abscond from or interfere with the investigation. 20. By a decision of 4 February 2013, the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant to be detained for a period of two months pending trial. The relevant part of the decision read as follows: “The materials collected in respect of the criminal investigation give rise to sufficient grounds to believe initially, in accordance with the principle of presumption, that Yagublu Tofig Rashid oglu committed the acts provided for in Articles 233 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan in force. Taking into account the character and degree of danger to the public of the criminal offences attributed to the accused, the fact that he is charged with a criminal offence qualified as less serious crime, as well as the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, he would abscond from the investigation and the court or influence other persons involved in the proceedings, the court considers that the request must be granted and the preventive measure of remand in custody must be applied in his respect.” 21. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this decision. He complained that there was no evidence that he had committed any criminal offence and there had been no justification for the application of the preventive measure of detention pending trial. 22. On 8 February 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the detention order was justified. In this connection the appellate court held that the first-instance court had correctly taken into account the fact that the applicant had been charged with a less serious criminal offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from the investigation and obstruct the normal functioning of the investigation. 23. The applicant’s arrest and the institution of criminal proceedings against him attracted significant public and media interest both inside the country and internationally. 24. Immediately after the applicant’s arrest, a number of domestic NGOs, as well as international NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, condemned the authorities’ actions, deeming the arrest to be “politically motivated persecution” on “trumped up” charges. 25. On 6 February 2013, Pedro Agramunt and Joseph Debono Grech, PACE Monitoring Committee co-rapporteurs on Azerbaijan, expressed their concern at the arrest of the applicant, noting that it “gave rise to justified doubts and legitimate concerns” and urging the authorities to release the applicant and Ilgar Mammadov. 26. On 8 February 2013, Thorbjørn Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, made the following official statement: “I am concerned by the recent events in Azerbaijan and the heavy-handed response of the police to the protests. I am particularly disturbed by the arrest on 4 February of Tofig Yagublu and Ilgar Mammadov, in relation to recent events in Ismayilli. Mr Mammadov is the Director of the Baku School of Political Studies, a close co‑operation partner of the Council of Europe. Today’s decision of the Baku Court of Appeal not to release these two men and its refusal to allow the Council of Europe’s representative to be present during the court proceedings is of particular gravity. I call on the authorities of Azerbaijan to respect the fundamental principles and legally-binding standards of the European Convention of Human Rights, which they have undertaken to uphold when joining the Council of Europe.” 27. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre-trial detention. He claimed, in particular, that his detention had not been justified and that there was no reason for its continuation. In support of his request, the applicant pointed out that he had a permanent place of residence and that there was no risk of his absconding from or obstructing the investigation. 28. On 5 March 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request and found that the preventive measure should be left “unchanged”. The relevant part of the decision read: “Taking into account the character and degree of danger to the public of the criminal offences attributed to the accused, the court considers that it is not possible to attain the objective of the preventive measure without keeping the accused Yagublu Tofig Rashid oglu in detention and totally isolating him from society. For this reason, the request must be dismissed in accordance with Article 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Azerbaijan.” 29. On 14 March 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 5 March 2013. 30. On an unspecified date the prosecutor lodged a request with the court asking for an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention by two months, noting that more time was needed to complete the investigation. Despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings in question, the Government failed to provide the Court with a copy of the prosecutor’s request. 31. On 18 March 2013 the Nasimi District Court examined the prosecutor’s request for the extension of the applicant’s detention period. At the hearing, the applicant and his lawyer asked the judge to dismiss the prosecutor’s request, submitting that the applicant had not committed any criminal offence and had no link to the events in Ismayilli. The applicant’s lawyer also submitted that the applicant had always cooperated with the investigation, that there was no risk of his absconding, and that the investigation had failed to justify his continued detention. On the same date the judge extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by two months, until 6 June 2013. He substantiated the necessity of the extension of the applicant’s detention as follows: “Taking into account that the pre-trial detention period of Tofig Yagublu ends on 4 April 2013 and that it is not possible to carry out the investigative steps indicated in the request during the remaining period of time, as well as the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, he would abscond from the investigation and thus fail to comply with requests to meet with investigators without any good reason, and disrupt the normal course of the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons involved in the proceedings and having regard to the character of the acts attributed to him, the court considers that the detention period of Tofig Yagublu must be extended for a period of two months, namely until 4 June 2013.” 32. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that the extension of his detention was unlawful. He noted, in particular, that there was no evidence that he had committed any criminal offence, that the investigating authorities had not taken any investigative steps, and that the first-instance court had not taken into account his family situation, place of residence or other personal circumstances when it had extended his detention. 33. On 29 March 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The appellate court made no mention of the applicant’s specific complaints. 34. It appears from the case file that on 25 April 2013 the applicant was charged with new criminal offences under Articles 220.1 (mass disorder) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or health) of the Criminal Code. In essence, the charge under Article 220.1, which carried a much heavier sentence (four to twelve years’ imprisonment), replaced the previous charge under Article 233. The investigator’s decision in this respect was not made available to the Court by the Government. 35. One of the effects of the new charge under Article 220.1 of the Criminal Code was that the applicant could no longer apply for bail, because the law did not permit individuals accused of deliberately committing “serious crimes” to be released on bail. Moreover, as a person charged with a serious crime, the applicant’s pre-trial detention could now be extended for a longer period overall. 36. It appears from the case file that on 15 May 2013 the Nasimi District Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention period for a further three months. The Government did not provide the Court with a copy of the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 15 May 2013. 37. On 21 May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 15 May 2013. The relevant part of the appellate court’s decision read as follows: “Relying on the above mentioned, the panel of the court considers that the first‑instance court took into account: the fact that the grounds for the detention of Yagublu Tofiq Rashid oglu are still valid; that a number of investigative steps still needed to be taken for the completion of the investigation; the complexity of the criminal case; the gravity of the criminal offence committed by the accused; and the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, he would abscond from the investigation. [The first-instance court] reached a correct, lawful and justified conclusion concerning the necessity of the extension of the detention period of Yagublu Tofig Rashid oglu.” 38. On 13 August 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention for a period of three months, that is to say until 4 December 2013. It appears from the decision that the applicant and his lawyer stated before the court that the applicant had not played any role in the events of Ismayilli and had not committed any criminal offence. They further submitted that the applicant had always cooperated with the investigation and that there was no risk of his absconding. The relevant part of the decision of 13 August 2013 read as follows: “Taking into account that the pre-trial detention period of Tofig Yagublu ends on 4 September 2013, that numerous persons were involved in the proceedings the size of the case file, the complexity of the criminal case, the necessity of carrying out the investigative steps indicated in the request and that sufficient time was needed to do so, and that it is not possible to carry out these steps indicated in the request during the remaining period of time, as well as the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, he would abscond from the investigation and fail to answer calls to meet with investigators without any good reason, and disrupt the normal course of the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons involved in the proceedings, and the nature of the act attributed to him, the court considers that the detention of Tofig Yagublu must be extended for a period of three months, that is to say until 4 December 2013.” 39. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this decision reiterating his previous complaints. 40. On 22 August 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appellate court’s reasoning was essentially the same as in the previous extension decisions. 41. No further extension decisions were included in the case file. 42. The applicant’s criminal trial began in November 2013. On 17 March 2014 the Shaki Serious Crimes Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. 43. On 24 September 2014 the Shaki Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction. 44. The applicant’s cassation appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.

7. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the village of Goyty in Urus-Martan District in the Chechen Republic. 8. The applicant is the mother of Mr Khanpasha Lechayevich Dzhabrailov, born in 1976. At the material time the applicant, Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov, his wife and their three children lived at 24 Shamov Street, Goyty village. 9. The account below is based on eyewitness statements of the applicant and her daughter, Ms Raisa Dzhabrailova. 10. According to the applicant, the village of Goyty was under the federal forces’ control from December 1999. The road leading to and from the village was blocked by federal checkpoints. 11. On 10 April 2003 at around 4 a.m. a khaki UAZ vehicle, a grey UAZ off-road vehicle («таблетка») and a grey bus with a blue stripe arrived at the Dzhabrailovs’ house. Around twenty armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles; the applicant believed that they belonged to the Russian military because they spoke unaccented Russian and could move freely around the village during the curfew. 12. Around ten servicemen entered the house, woke the Dzhabrailovs and, threatening them with their machine guns, forced them to the floor. Then they seized Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s badge of an employee of a local human rights NGO, grabbed the young man and dragged him to the door. When the applicant and her daughter-in-law asked them where they intended to take Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov, the servicemen gave no clear answer but shouted at the women, using mostly swear words. They then blindfolded Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov and took him away. 13. Ms Raisa Dhzbrailova followed the servicemen and saw them put Mr Khanpasha Dzabrailov into the bus and leave in the direction of Urus‑Martan. (b) The Government’s account of events 14. According to the Government, on 10 April 2003 at about 4 a.m. a group of at least ten unidentified persons in masks and camouflage uniforms armed with automatic firearms entered the house at 24 Shamov Street in Goyty village, abducted Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov and took him away to an unknown destination. 15. On 11 April 2003 the applicant complained in writing about her son’s abduction to the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District. 16. On 27 April 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) instituted an investigation into Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s disappearance under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 34051. 17. On 30 April 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic (“the republican prosecutor’s office”) forwarded the applicant’s complaint about her son’s disappearance to the district prosecutor’s office. 18. On 27 June 2003 the district prosecutor’s office stayed the investigation for failure to identify those responsible. 19. On 10 June (or September) 2003 the military commander’s office of Urus-Martan District informed the applicant in reply to her complaint of 11 April 2003 (see paragraph 15 above) that they had carried out an internal inquiry which had not established Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s whereabouts or the identities of those who had abducted him. They also assured the applicant that they would continue searching for her son. 20. On 10 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that they had stayed the investigation in case no. 34051 on 27 June 2003 and advised her that she had the opportunity to appeal against that decision. 21. On 30 September 2003 the department of the interior of Urus-Martan District informed the applicant that since 27 May 2003 they had been carrying out search activities in relation to the kidnapping of Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov. 22. On 9 December 2003 the republican prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaint about her son’s kidnapping to the district prosecutor’s office and ordered them to update her on the outcome of the investigation. On 17 December 2003 the district prosecutor’s office replied, without specifying the date, that the investigation into Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s kidnapping had been stayed. 23. On 28 January 2004 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the investigation in case no. 34051 had been suspended and invited her to provide the investigators with any new pieces of relevant information that she might obtain. 24. On 12 July 2004 the republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that investigative measures were being taken to resolve Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s kidnapping. 25. In a letter of 22 September 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant’s daughter, Ms R. Dzhabrailova, that operational and search activity was under way in criminal case no. 34051 and that she would be notified if any important information emerged. 26. On 15 December 2005 the republican prosecutor’s office forwarded Ms R. Dzhabrailova’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office with a request for more activity in the investigation, for all necessary measures to be taken to establish the whereabouts of the missing person and for Ms R. Dhzabrailova to be informed of the results of the examination of her complaint. 27. In a letter of 2 January 2006 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant’s daughter that operational and search activity was under way in criminal case no. 34051 opened on 27 April 2003, that during the preliminary investigation the authorities had taken the steps it was possible to take in the absence of the culprits, and that she would be notified if any important information emerged. 28. In a letter of 14 March 2008 the investigator in charge informed Mr L. Dzhabrailov that the investigation in case no. 34051 had been stayed on 4 March 2008 and that it was open to him to challenge this decision in accordance with Articles 124 and 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. The letter did not specify the ground on which the investigation had been suspended. 29. According to the applicant, at some point she and her daughter spoke to an official of the district prosecutor’s office, who had allegedly said to them that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov had confessed that he had been a participant in illegal armed groups. In the Government’s submission, in the criminal investigation file there was a police report, rather than Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s confession, stating that the applicant’s son had been a member of illegal armed groups and participated in operations under command of Salman Raduyev, one of the Chechen field commanders. According to the Government, however, this information had not been confirmed during the investigation. 30. In the applicant’s submission, since the beginning of 2008 the investigating authorities had visited her house on three occasions and questioned ten witnesses, all of whom had confirmed that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov had been a law-abiding person and had had no enemies. 31. According to the Government, the investigation was repeatedly suspended owing to failure to establish those responsible and then reopened pursuant to supervising prosecutors’ orders, but had been unable to date to identify the alleged perpetrators. 32. In the Government’s submission, in course of the investigation the investigating authorities questioned the applicant as well as Mr L. Dzhabrailov and Ms R. Dhzabrailova, who confirmed the circumstances of the incident of 10 April 2003. In particular, the applicant had stated, as alleged by the Government, that on the date in question ten unidentified armed people in masks and camouflage uniforms had arrived at the Dzhabrailovs’ address in a grey UAZ off-road vehicle, a UAZ vehicle and a Gazel minibus, put Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov in the UAZ off-road vehicle and taken him away. According to the applicant, the other witnesses gave similar oral evidence. 33. According to the Government, the status of victim was granted to Ms Ya. Dhzbrailova – Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s wife – on 26 May 2003, and then to Mr L. Dzhabrailov on 15 June 2004. It does not appear that the applicant has ever been declared a victim in the case. 34. The Government also submitted that the investigating authorities sent enquiries to law-enforcement bodies in the Chechen Republic and further in the Northern Caucasus. According to the replies received by the investigators, no criminal proceedings had ever been brought against Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov, he had not been arrested by any of those law‑enforcement agencies, nor kept in any detention centres, there was no information as to whether he had participated in illegal armed groups, he had not been found among unidentified corpses and had never applied for assistance to any medical institutions. The replies also stated that the federal forces had not conducted any special operation in the Urus-Martan District on 10 April 2003, and that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s whereabouts could not be established despite steps taken to find him. 35. In the Government’s submission, at present investigative actions are being taken aiming at resolving the crime and punishing those responsible. 36. On 26 January 2004 the applicant complained to Urus-Martan Town Court that the investigators were taking no action in case no. 34051. She also requested that she be admitted to the proceedings as a victim and a civil party and be allowed access to the investigation file. It is unclear whether Urus-Martan Town Court replied to that complaint. 37. On 22 March 2004 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic that the investigation was ineffective and requested that she be admitted to the proceedings as a victim and a civil party and be allowed access to the investigation file. 38. On 12 May 2004 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to be examined in compliance with the subject matter jurisdiction rules. 39. It is unclear whether the applicant’s complaints have been examined by domestic courts. 40. In September 2007, when the application was communicated to them, the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in criminal case no. 34051 opened in connection with the abduction of the applicant’s son. The Government refused to submit any documents from the file, stating that under Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure disclosure of the documents was contrary to the interests of the investigation and could entail a breach of the rights of the participants in the criminal proceedings. They also submitted that they had taken into account the possibility of requesting confidentiality under Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, but noted that the Court provided no guarantees that once in receipt of the investigation file the applicant or her representatives would not disclose these materials to the public. According to the Government, in the absence of any sanctions in respect of the applicant for the disclosure of confidential information and materials, there were no guarantees concerning compliance by the applicant with the Convention and the Rules of Court. 41. In December 2007 the Court reiterated its request. In reply, the Government again refused to produce any documents from the file for the aforementioned reasons. At the same time, they suggested that a Court delegation could be given access to the file in Russia, with the exception of those documents containing military and State secrets, and without the right to make copies of the case file.

4. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava. 5. On 30 June 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against his neighbour, Mr P., in the Trenčín District Court (Okresný súd). He maintained that in 1991 P., with his truck, had damaged the applicant’s fence. He sought damages and an order that P. repair the fence and refrain from using the road adjacent to it. 6. As his submissions were unclear, the applicant was summoned four times for an informative interview; invited to state his claims in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements; and requested to pay the court fee. In response, the applicant twice restated his action and paid the court fee on 25 August, 25 October and 16 November 1993, respectively. 7. The hearing held on 16 December 1993 was adjourned with a view to obtaining an expert report concerning the damage. The report was filed on 18 April 1994. 8. Another hearing was called for 13 May 1994 but it had to be adjourned as the applicant did not appear. 9. On 30 May 1994 the applicant and P. reached a friendly settlement of the case before the District Court in which P. agreed to repair the fence. 10. On 30 May 1994, by a separate decision, the District Court ruled on the fee to be paid to the expert for his report. On 15 December 1994 the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld this decision on the applicant’s appeal. 11. On 12 January 1995 the applicant lodged a petition with the District Court for the judicial enforcement of the settlement, arguing that the way in which P. had repaired the fence did not comply with the settlement. 12. On 10 August 2000 the District Court dismissed the petition, finding that P. had repaired the fence properly. 13. On 30 November 2001, on the applicant’s appeal, the Trenčín Regional Court quashed the decision of 10 August 2000 and remitted the matter to the District Court for re-examination. It found that the District Court had failed to establish the relevant facts adequately and that the evidence before it was not sufficient to justify the conclusion it had drawn. 14. On 9 December 2003 the District Court appointed a construction expert to inspect the site and assess whether or not there had been compliance with the settlement. The expert filed his report on 27 January 2004. 15. On 29 January 2004, by three separate decisions, the District Court again dismissed the applicant’s petition for judicial enforcement of the settlement; ruled that the applicant did not qualify for an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee; and determined the amount of the fee to be paid by the State to the expert for his report. As to the merits, on the basis of the expert report the District Court concluded that P. had fulfilled his undertakings and that there was no cause for enforcement. 16. On 19 February 2004 the applicant challenged the above mentioned decisions of 29 January 2004 by three separate appeals. As to the merits, he argued that the netting used by P. was not the same as the original, and that P. had failed to paint it. 17. On 30 June 2004 the Regional Court upheld all three decisions of 29 January 2004 fully endorsing the factual findings and conclusions of the District Court. 18. The applicant challenged the length of the proceedings in the above matter by a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution to the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). In the text of the complaint, the applicant impugned the whole length of the proceedings. However, in the object of the complaint, as expressed in a standardised and prescribed form, the applicant formally challenged the enforcement phase of the proceedings only and claimed 200,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) in compensation for his non‑pecuniary damage. 19. On 14 January 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible and granted the applicant free legal aid. 20. On 29 April 2004 the Constitutional Court found that, in the enforcement proceedings, the District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing “without unjustified delay”, and his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing “within a reasonable time”. It further awarded the applicant SKK 15,000[2] by way of just satisfaction in respect of his non‑pecuniary damage and ordered the reimbursement of his legal costs. The Constitutional Court found no justification for the total length of the proceedings in the complexity of the case or the conduct of the parties. Moreover, it found that the District Court had been inactive without any justification from 12 January 1996 to 25 June 1997, from 20 August 1997 to 24 September 1999, and from 18 March 2002 to 9 December 2003, a total of 5 years and 2 months.

5. The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Jedwabno. In 1996 he lost both his forearms in an accident. He is certified as having a first-degree disability, requiring the assistance of another person. 6. On 17 June 2002 the applicant, who was a suspect in criminal proceedings, was summoned by the police to present himself, two days later, at the Szczytno District Police Headquarters (Powiatowa Komeda Policji). 7. On 19 June 2002 the Szczytno District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of having committed a number of offences against a minor and of having coerced a person into committing perjury. 8. The domestic court justified the applicant’s pre‑trial detention by the existence of strong evidence against him, the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed and by the need to secure the proper course of the proceedings. On the latter point, it emphasised that the applicant, who had remained at large for some time after the start of the investigation, had attempted to coerce witnesses into giving false testimony in the case. The authorities took into consideration the applicant’s disability and a medical certificate issued by his doctor on 15 March 2002, which stated that the applicant was not able to live independently. 9. On 1 July 2002 the Szczytno District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) dismissed the applicant’s request for the pre‑trial detention order to be lifted. The prosecutor reiterated the reasons for the applicant’s pre‑trial detention as they had been presented by the Szczytno District Court. Moreover, it was noted that the applicant had been detained for four months in the past in Szczytno Remand Centre, in connection with another criminal case against him. The Szczytno Remand Centre had never informed the authorities of any obstacles to providing the applicant with adequate care and conditions during his detention. In case of medical necessity the authorities were prepared to transfer the applicant to a remand centre hospital, where he would be able to obtain specialist medical treatment. It was pointed out that the testimony of the applicant’s mother, who had submitted that the applicant was unable to live independently, had been contradicted by the statements of other witnesses who had described the applicant as being completely independent. 10. On 12 July 2002 the Olsztyn Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the decision to keep the applicant in pre‑trial detention. 11. On 29 July 2002 the Szczytno District Prosecutor dismissed a request by the applicant for pre‑trial detention to be replaced with a different preventive measure. 12. On 30 August 2002 the applicant was indicted on numerous counts of extortion of money from a minor and other related offences. 13. His pre‑trial detention was extended by decisions of the Szczytno District Court of 5 August, 6 September and 31 October 2002. The last two decisions were upheld by the Olsztyn Regional Court on 27 September and 22 November 2002 respectively. The domestic courts reiterated that there was strong evidence against the applicant and a likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed, and referred again to the need to secure the proper course of the proceedings. Additionally, it was noted that the authorities needed more time to hear the witnesses for the defence and to complete other investigative steps. 14. In the meantime, on 1 July and 25 October 2002, the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s requests to have the measure in question lifted for humanitarian reasons. 15. The first hearing was held on 10 October 2002. 16. On 31 October 2002 the Szczytno District Court convicted the applicant of several of the charges and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. 17. On 17 January 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention while his criminal case was pending on appeal. 18. On 24 January 2003 the same court refused to lift the measure because the applicant had been convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment by the first‑instance court. In addition, the court relied on the assessment that, despite the applicant’s disability, his detention did not put his life or health at any risk. 19. On 31 January 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court upheld its own decision of 17 January 2003. 20. On 19 February 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment in the main part, changing the legal classification of one of the offences of which the applicant had been convicted by the first‑instance court. The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 May 2003. 21. No cassation appeal was lodged in the case. 22. Throughout the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer of his choice. 23. From 19 June 2002 until 5 March 2003 the applicant was detained in Szczytno Remand Centre. From 5 until 28 March 2003 he was committed to Olsztyn Remand Centre. From 28 March until 7 July 2003 he was again detained in Szczytno Remand Centre. 24. On 7 July 2003 the applicant was granted leave from serving his sentence (przerwa w odbywaniu kary) to seek orthopaedic care outside the penitentiary system. 25. After his leave came to an end, the applicant was held in Szczytno and Olsztyn Remand Centres alternately. He was detained in the former facility from 13 July 2004 until 15 February 2005, from 9 until 17 August 2005 and from 25 April until 21 October 2006. He was detained in the latter facility from 15 February until 9 August 2005 and from 17 August 2005 until 25 April 2006. 26. On 21 October 2006 the applicant was granted parole (warunkowe zwolnienie) and is currently at liberty. 2. The description of the conditions of the applicant’s detention and procedure for obtaining arm prostheses (a) From 19 June 2002 until 7 July 2003- without prostheses 27. In Szczytno Remand Centre (from 19 June 2002 until 5 March 2003 and from 28 March until 7 July 2003) the applicant was held in various multi-occupancy cells in the general wing. 28. The applicant claimed that the conditions in Szczytno Remand Centre had not been adapted to his specific needs. He asserted that, despite his disability, the remand centre staff had not provided him with any special care. That had made his life in detention very difficult. The applicant had not been able to carry out many of his daily or routine tasks, such as serving his meals, making his bed, cutting his toenails, washing, shaving and getting dressed, and cleaning himself after going to the bathroom. He had had to seek help from his fellow inmates, which had put him in a position of dependency. 29. The Government submitted that during his detention the applicant had been self-sufficient. He had his meals, got dressed, made his bed and read newspapers without the aid of another person. Occasionally, in very minor tasks such as making sandwiches, he received help from his fellow inmates. 30. In their submission, the applicant was under the special care of the remand centre’s administration. He was released from the duty to clean his cell and benefited from various privileges, such as longer family visits, the right to receive additional food parcels and to take a shower six times per week. As a reward for winning various prison competitions, the applicant was granted unsupervised leave from the remand centre five times. Three of these periods of leave lasted a few days. The applicant was also under the supervision of the prison psychologist, whom he consulted eleven times. 31. Prior to the applicant’s detention, on 15 March 2002 an orthopaedist of the Olsztyn Regional Specialised Hospital (Wojewódzki Szpital Specjalistyczny) issued a medical certificate (zaświadczenie lekarskie), stating that the applicant was not fit for self-sufficient existence and detention in a prison. 32. On 19 August 2002 the Head of the Medical Establishment at Szczytno Remand Centre (Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej) issued a memorandum to the Governor (Dyrektor) of Szczytno Remand Centre, in which he stated that there was no medical reason to transfer the applicant to a specialist facility since his health was good. It was noted that the assistance which the applicant required was not of a medical nature but, rather, related to his physical inability to carry out his daily tasks independently. 33. In a letter of 3 September 2002 the remand centre governor informed the applicant that his complaints about the conditions of his pre‑trial detention had been considered ill‑founded. It was noted that the remand centre doctor had not found any medical reasons to justify the applicant’s transfer to another place of detention or his release. Furthermore it was stated that the applicant was independent in his daily routines in the remand centre. He could dress himself, make his bed, eat, and read newspapers without anyone’s assistance. In other daily tasks the applicant received help from his inmates. 34. On 13 October 2002 the applicant was informed by an official of a local self‑government organisation, who visited him in the remand centre, about the procedure for renewing his application for prostheses. 35. The same day, the Szczytno Remand Centre’s in-house doctor made an official application for prostheses on the applicant’s behalf. 36. On 23 January 2003 the State-run Sick Fund (Kasa Chorych) approved a full reimbursement of the cost of basic mechanical prostheses (protezy mechaniczne), which was PLN 3,600 (approximately EUR 860). The prostheses were to be made by the Orthopaedic Equipment Establishment (Zakład Sprzętu Ortopedycznego) in Olsztyn. 37. By a letter of 28 February 2003 the Director of the Olsztyn Regional Prison Service (Dyrektor Okręgowy Służby Więziennej) replied to allegations that the Szczytno Remand Centre had not supported the applicant in his efforts to obtain forearm prostheses and that the medical care provided during his detention had been inadequate. It was observed that, prior to the applicant’s detention, in July 2001 the Sick Fund had approved the applicant’s request to obtain forearm prostheses free of charge. However, the grant could not be executed due to a shortage of funds. On 15 March 2002 the State Sick Fund extended the validity of its prostheses approval until 30 September 2002. On 13 October 2002 the applicant was informed by an official of a local self‑government organisation, who visited him in the remand centre, about the procedure for renewing his application for prostheses. Despite this, the applicant did not proceed with his application for four months. Finally, thanks to the remand centre’s assistance, on 23 January 2003 the State Sick Fund approved a full reimbursement of the cost of the prostheses. The applicant was scheduled to be transferred to Olsztyn Remand Centre in order to have the prostheses made in a local orthopaedic centre. It was concluded that the applicant’s detention did not put his life or health at any risk and that, having had his forearms amputated six years previously, he was now perfectly independent in carrying out his daily routines in detention. 38. On 5 March 2003 the applicant was transferred to Olsztyn Remand Centre in order to have the prostheses made. The basic prostheses offered, however, did not suit the applicant. He declared that he would only accept bio-mechanical (kinetic) prostheses (protezy biomechaniczne). That type of prostheses were not made in Olsztyn but by the Independent Public Establishment for Orthopaedic Supplies (Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Zaopatrzenia Ortopedycznego) in Poznań. 39. On 28 March 2003 the applicant was transferred back to Szczytno Remand Centre. An application for bio-mechanical prostheses was made by the prison authorities on his behalf. 40. On 7 May 2003 the Szczytno District Court found that the applicant’s detention in Szczytno Remand Centre did not put his life or health in danger but created only minor difficulties for him. 41. The total cost of the applicant’s bio-mechanical prostheses was estimated at 50,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 12,000). On an unspecified date the applicant was informed that a refund of PLN 3,600 (approximately EUR 860) could be granted by the National Health Fund (Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia). Under the applicable law every patient seeking to obtain bio-mechanical prosthesis had to pay the difference from his or her own budget. 42. On 12 May 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court ruled that the applicant be transferred to Poznań Remand Centre, where he could have fittings for his bio-mechanical prostheses, provided that he undertook to pay the non‑refundable portion of the price. In the Government’s submission, the applicant did not agree to that. 43. On 29 May 2003 a psychiatrist at Szczytno Remand Centre diagnosed the applicant with a form of depression which in his opinion could be attributed to the applicant’s fear of not being able to obtain forearm prostheses. It was noted that the applicant had twice attempted to commit suicide when he had been held in a correction centre when he was a minor. The doctor did not make any recommendation as to the conditions of the applicant’s detention or his treatment. 44. A copy of the applicant’s medical records reveals that during this part of his detention, he was consulted by various specialists on approximately twelve occasions. 45. On 7 July 2003 the applicant was granted a six‑month period of leave from serving his sentence to seek orthopaedic care outside the penitentiary system. The domestic court observed that, even though the applicant’s disability did not make him, strictly speaking, unfit for detention, it was nevertheless making it more difficult for him, especially without prostheses. The leave was subsequently extended until 7 July 2004. (b) From 13 July 2004 until 21 October 2006 – with prostheses 46. While at liberty, presumably in March 2004, the applicant obtained two basic mechanical forearm prostheses and underwent the necessary physiotherapy (rehabilitation). 47. On 18 March 2004 the applicant obtained a medical certificate from a private medical clinic, stating that he had recently received new prostheses and urgently required physiotherapy. It was further noted that the applicant was not self-sufficient and required the aid of third persons, and that he could not be detained in prison. 48. On 7 July 2004 the applicant’s leave came to an end but he failed to return to prison. On 13 July 2004 he was arrested and committed to Szczytno Remand Centre to serve the rest of his prison sentence. 49. The applicant was detained in Szczytno Remand Centre from 13 July 2004 until 15 February 2005, from 9 until 17 August 2005 and from 25 April until 21 October 2006. He was also detained in Olsztyn Remand Centre from 15 February until 9 August 2005 and from 17 August 2005 until 25 April 2006. 50. By letter of 25 November 2004 the director of a rehabilitation centre in Szczytno (Ponadlokalne Centrum Rehabilitacyjno-Edukacyjne dla Dzieci i Młodzieży Niepełnosprawnej) provided the applicant with the following information. According to the results of the medical consultation of 10 November 2004 and the opinion of a specialist in rehabilitation, the applicant did not require any further rehabilitation or training in using his arm prostheses. With his basic mechanical prostheses, the applicant could carry out simple daily tasks such as eating and brushing his teeth. Those prostheses, however, did not allow for high precision movements, such as those necessary for washing, putting on smaller items of clothing, shaving or going to the bathroom. 51. On 26 November 2004 the Governor of Szczytno Remand Centre applied to the Szczytno District Court for permission to transfer the applicant to a detention facility near Poznań in order to enable him to undergo further physiotherapy. On 30 November 2004 the request was rejected by the Szczytno District Court on the ground that the applicant’s presence was necessary in Szczytno, where new criminal proceedings were pending against him. 52. On 17 January 2005 the Szczytno Remand Centre governor informed the applicant, in reply to the latter’s query, that during his detention “adequate help was secured [to him] by the remand centre administration through the applicant’s inmates”. It was also noted that the applicant had refused to work with a physiotherapist whose presence at the remand centre had been arranged by the administration. 53. On 7 and 20 April 2005 an in‑house doctor at Olsztyn Remand Centre issued two medical certificates stating that the applicant could not receive adequate care and treatment in prison because of the nature of his disability. 54. On 25 April 2005 the Szczytno District Court asked for an expert medical report to verify whether or not the applicant was fit to be kept in prison. 55. On 21 June 2005 two experts, in cardiology and orthopaedics respectively, issued a report, stating that although the applicant found his prostheses helpful, he still needed the assistance of others in many of his daily activities, as his mechanical prostheses did not allow him to make any precise movements. It was noted that the applicant had expressed a wish to obtain more advanced bio‑mechanical prostheses, which were available from the Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Equipment Establishment in Poznań. In addition, the applicant was diagnosed with hypertension. Nevertheless, the experts concluded that the applicant had adapted well to his disability and that his overall health was good which, in turn, made him fit to continue his detention. On the other hand, it was pointed out that some assistance should be provided to the applicant in his daily routines by the remand centre staff. 56. On 8 November 2005 the Head of the Healthcare Establishment (Kierownik Zakładu Opieki Zdrowotnej) of Olsztyn Remand Centre informed the applicant of the following: the applicant’s disability did not require any medical treatment; his other ailments could be treated within the prison healthcare system; bio-mechanical prostheses were not refunded by the National Health Fund; and lastly, according to the applicable law, a person with a first-degree disability required the assistance of another person in his or her daily existence. Such assistance could not be provided to the applicant in the remand centre. Nevertheless, as stated in the expert opinion of 21 June 2005 (see paragraph 49 above), the applicant was fit for detention because he was well-adjusted to his disability. 57. The applicant provided the Court with a document dated 23 December 2005 in which the Deputy Governor of Olsztyn Remand Centre stated that the applicant had been detained in a four-person cell in wing A, which was not adapted for special needs prisoners. It was also noted that Olsztyn Remand Centre as such did not possess any cells in which special arrangements had been made to accommodate the needs of physically disabled persons. 58. The Government submitted that in Olsztyn Remand Centre the applicant had been committed to a wing in which cells had been kept open almost all day long. Other than that, the conditions of the applicant’s detention there were similar to those in Szczytno Remand Centre. 59. A copy of the applicant’s medical records reveals that during this part of his detention, he was consulted by various specialists on approximately sixty occasions. 60. The applicant lodged numerous complaints with the administration of Szczytno Remand Centre, domestic courts and penitentiary authorities, arguing that he should not be detained due to his disability or, alternatively, that he should be offered special care. In addition, he complained about the difficulties he had had in obtaining forearm prostheses (see paragraphs 28, 29, 32 and 35 above). 61. On 13 October 2003 the Szczytno District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) discontinued an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations that between 19 June 2002 and 7 July 2003 the staff of Szczytno Remand Centre had failed in undertaking the necessary actions to provide the applicant with arm prostheses. The authorities referred to the events described in paragraphs 34-42 above and concluded that the prison authorities had not acted to the applicant’s detriment but, to the contrary, had made extensive efforts to provide him with arm prostheses.

7. The applicants were born in 1944 and 1948, and live in Penza. At the material time the first applicant was a trade-union leader, the second applicant a journalist. They also co-chaired the Penza Regional Voters' Association “Civic Unity” (Grazhdanskoye yedinstvo). 8. On 15 August 2000 the Co-ordination Council of the Penza Regional Voters' Association Civic Unity adopted at its meeting the draft text of an open letter, entitled “Media coverage of the reforms of President Putin in the Penza Region” (“Informatsionnoye obespecheniy reform Prezidenta V.V. Putina v Penzenskoy oblasti”). 9. On 16 August 2000 the text was discussed at a round table attended by the applicants, the editors-in-chief of local newspapers and journalists. The draft was amended and elaborated. The discussion concluded with the adoption of the open letter by the Co-ordination Council of Civic Unity and managers of the independent media in the Penza Region to the President of the Russian Federation, the Security Council of the Russian Federation, the Journalists' Union of Russia, the plenipotentiary representative of the President for the Volga Federal District, and the Minister for Press and Information of the Russian Federation. The open letter was signed by the applicants and four editors-in-chief. 10. On 24 August 2000 the Novaya birzhevaya gazeta newspaper published the open letter on its front page. The relevant extracts of the letter, translated from Russian, read as follows: “We (authors of the open letter) subscribe to various political views but are unanimous in our support of the President's drive to curb corruption in the country, bring order to the economy, and assert the rule of law and democratic standards in all sectors of society. We have gathered at the round table because of our common concern for the fate of the President's reforms in the Penza Region. The Penza Region is gradually transforming into a private holding controlled by Governor V. Bochkaryov and his close circle ... [emphasis added, see below] Today we (the independent media) embarrass the regional authorities because we openly disagree with the selfish and destructive policy of the governor and his team, we publish materials denouncing bribe-takers and officials who abuse their position ... Once again, as in early 1991 when the [Communist] Party's nomenclature feared their imminent dismissal, the regional authorities have started reprisals against the independent media. Journalists are subjected to threats and beatings, our publications are prohibited from being printed and distributed in the region ... On the other side – the independent media, whose attempts to stand for the rule of law, human rights, to talk about bringing order to the economy and to expose corruption are routinely suppressed by the governor and his acolytes ...”[1] 11. The remainder of the open letter harshly criticised the Governor of the Penza Region personally and contained allegations of serious wrongdoings. 12. On 3 February 2001 twelve members of the Penza Regional Government lodged a civil action with the Leninskiy District Court of Penza for the protection of their honour, dignity and professional reputation and for compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly sustained as a result of the publication of the open letter. They named the applicants and other signatories to the letter, as well as the newspaper that published it, as co-defendants. 13. On 3 March 2001 the original plaintiffs were joined by fourteen other members of the Penza Regional Government with identical claims. 14. On 30 March 2001 one of the original plaintiffs, Mr D., withdrew his claim. Speaking to the Novaya birzhevaya gazeta newspaper, he described the proceedings as “an attempt to bring the media under control”. In April 2001 Mr D. was dismissed from his position in the Government. 15. The applicants brought a counterclaim against the plaintiffs, alleging that they had violated civil-service law in that they had used their official position to discredit and adversely affect the functioning of the Civic Unity association. The applicants claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused by a violation of their rights and freedoms, in particular, the right to freedom of opinion guaranteed by the Constitution. 16. On 15 May 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza gave judgment. It carried out at the outset a detailed analysis of federal and regional laws on the structure of the Penza Regional Government and reached the following conclusion on the plaintiffs' standing in the defamation suit: “... any State official in the Penza Region wields a certain power and authority that is essential to the performance of his functional duties; hence, he falls into the category of 'regional authority'. Considering that the 'regional authority' is made up of individuals, that is, State officials, the term 'regional authority' applies to each plaintiff who is, by virtue of his position, a State official in the Penza Region. The words 'the close circle of Governor Bochkaryov', 'the governor's acolytes', and 'the governor's team' used in the impugned publication are – in the court's opinion, and despite the defendants' and their representatives' assertions to the contrary – applicable to all State officials [working in] the executive body of the Penza Regional Government and, therefore, to the plaintiffs.” 17. The District Court then examined the truthfulness of the applicants' statements referring to the “destructive” policy of the governor's team. It found that the applicants had not used any “scientific methodology for a comprehensive assessment of the social and economic development of the region” for the preparation of the open letter and that their evaluation had been entirely based on their personal views. The court rejected the statement by Mr D. on the economic decline in the Penza Region in 2001 because he had been dismissed from the Government and therefore, in the court's opinion, he was on the defendants' side. The court concluded that the statements referring to the “selfish and destructive policy” were untrue. 18. Likewise, the District Court found no evidence to support the statements referring to the persecution of journalists in the Penza Region. It pointed out that one of the signatories, the editor-in-chief of a local newspaper, could not prove that an attack on one of his journalists had been politically motivated. In the court's opinion, the fact that certain members of the Government had put pressure on local officials to subscribe to the newspapers controlled by the governor to the detriment of all others was lawful and could not be interpreted as “prohibition on distribution”. 19. The District Court held that the extracts of the open letter bold-faced in the text above were not true and damaged the honour and dignity of the plaintiffs as the members of the Penza Regional Government. It ordered that all the plaintiffs be jointly compensated for non-pecuniary damage: the defendant newspaper was to pay 50,000 Russian roubles (RUR) and each of the applicants and four of their co-defendants was to pay RUR 2,500. The court also ordered the defendant newspaper to publish a rectification. 20. The District Court dismissed the applicants' counterclaim on the ground that the plaintiffs had exercised their right to a court and, therefore, had not violated any of the applicants' rights. 21. On 24 July 2001 the Penza Regional Court examined an appeal by the applicants and upheld the judgment of 15 May 2001.

7. In February 1994 the Persons and Family Act was amended to require the registration with the Council of Ministers of non-profit organisations which had religious or related activities. Seventy-eight requests for registration were submitted, but only twenty-three organisations were registered. Those turned down were primarily Protestant groups. 8. Denial of legal status made it impossible for those organisations to hire public lecture halls or sign contracts in the name of the organisation. The unregistered organisations were unable to open bank accounts or publish journals or newspapers in the name of the organisation and were denied certain tax advantages. 9. Among the organisations whose registration was turned down was “Word of Life”, a Christian Evangelical group that had become active in Bulgaria in the early 1990s. 10. As a result of the authorities' refusal to register Word of Life, the religious organisation began clandestine activities. Meetings were periodically thwarted by the police followed by media propaganda against the organisation and its members. 11. On 20 June 1994, acting on an order from the Sofia's Prosecutor's Office, the police closed a hall used by Word of Life in Sofia and prevented members from using it. 12. On 22 June 1994 a Swedish citizen was expelled from Bulgaria because of his participation in a Word of Life course (see Lilja v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41574/98, 20 November 2003). 13. On 23 June 1994 a force of around thirty policemen prevented members of Word of Life from attending a meeting at a hall, because it had purportedly been cancelled. 14. On 23 February 1995 the police raided private homes in the town of Veliko Turnovo and a conference hall in the Hotel Etur. They confiscated religious literature, audio tapes and video cassettes, which they displayed at a press conference the next day. No charges were subsequently brought against any members of Word of Life. 15. On 20 July and 27 September 1995 the police raided two gatherings of Word of Life followers in private homes. Religious literature was confiscated and the hosts were required to declare in writing that they would no longer organise religious gatherings in their homes. 16. Throughout 1994 and 1995 the local Ruse media reported regularly on “unlawful” gatherings and religious activities by Word of Life followers. The media campaign intensified, with the national press joining in, during the summer and autumn of 1995. Press coverage was focused on the River Shipbuilding and Navigation School (Техникум по речно корабостроене и корабоплаване – “the School”) in Ruse because several of the non-academic staff were allegedly followers of Word of Life. The media also waged a personal campaign against some of those individuals by naming and condemning them as followers of the religious organisation. It called for their dismissal and named the applicant as one of the individuals whose employment should be terminated (see, for example, paragraph 22 below). 17. As a direct result, the Regional Prosecutor's Office and the National Security Service initiated inquiries into the religious activities of the School's staff members. 18. On 18 September 1995 the Regional Prosecutor's Office, in summarising the findings of the National Security Service, found that there were insufficient grounds for opening a preliminary investigation. At the same time it stated that, inter alia, the activities at the School were “not free of criminal culpability”, and that they were in contravention of the Religious Denominations Act and “probably” the relevant education Acts and regulations. Moreover, the allegedly “unlawful” religious activities were considered to have been carried out with the tacit approval of its principal. 19. Soon thereafter, the Regional Governor (областният управител) and a local member of parliament (“the MP”) called for radical measures to be taken to curb the alleged religious activities at the School and to dismiss the principal. They made public threats that, if such measures were not taken, they would petition the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (“the Ministry”) to dismiss the Chief Educational Inspector for Ruse (“the Educational Inspector”). 20. On 23 October 1995 the principal of the School was dismissed by the Ministry. The dismissal order directly referred to the negative media coverage and the findings of the Regional Prosecutor's Office and accused her of tolerating the activities of Word of Life at the School to the detriment of its staff and pupils. It also suggested that the principal should have dismissed those members of staff who were Word of Life followers. It is unclear whether the principal appealed against her dismissal. 22. In a broadcast on the Hristo Botev radio station, aired on 7 December 1995, the MP stressed that there were still members of Word of Life working in the School, such as the swimming pool manager (the post occupied by the applicant), and inferred from this that the Ministry had not conclusively resolved the matter with the dismissal of the former principal. 23. The applicant was a mechanical engineer and had a second university degree in pedagogical sciences. She had been involved in the religious activities of Word of Life since 1994. 24. On 14 October 1994 the applicant was appointed by the School to the post of “mechanic” at its swimming pool on a temporary employment contract until 23 February 1995. 25. On an unspecified date, the Ministry approved a new roster of posts (щатно разписание) for the School effective as of 1 January 1995, which provided for the post of “swimming pool manager” with a requirement for the holder of the post to have completed a course of secondary education. By a further amendment of 1 April 1995 the holder of the post was required to have a higher-education qualification. 26. On 6 April 1995 the applicant was promoted to the post of “swimming pool manager” and concluded a temporary employment contract with a term up to 31 August 1995. 27. On 31 August 1995 the applicant's temporary employment contract was extended until 31 August 1996. 28. On 20 September 1995 the applicant concluded an employment contract of indefinite duration, which provided for her appointment to the post of “swimming pool manager” as of 1 July 1995. Her job description indicated that her responsibilities included, inter alia, managing and supervising the staff of the swimming pool, organising their work schedules, monitoring the regular accounting of the proceeds from the swimming pool and organising the swimming lessons. The job description did not expressly refer to any education or professional qualification requirements for the post. The applicant's basic salary was set at 4,992 old Bulgarian levs (approximately 111 Deutsche marks (DEM)) with a 16% bonus for length of service. 29. On an unspecified date the Ministry approved a new roster of posts for the School effective as of 1 October 1995. It provided for the post of “swimming pool manager” with a requirement that the holder of the post have a higher-education qualification. 30. On 23 October 1995 the principal of the School was dismissed and a new one was appointed soon thereafter. 31. On 2 November 1995 the applicant was summoned to a meeting with the Educational Inspector and his deputy. Another member of staff, Mrs M., was also summoned to the meeting, which took place on the premises of the School. At the meeting, the inspectors asked for their resignations as a means of easing public tensions. The applicant contended, although this was disputed by the Government, that the inspectors had threatened them that if they did not resign of their own accord or did not renounce their faith, they would be dismissed on disciplinary grounds. The inspectors claimed that irrespective of their work performance they “could instruct the [new] principal” to dismiss them. Mrs M. denied being a member of Word of Life, while the applicant did not and also refused to resign. No assessment or mention was made during the meeting as to whether the applicant was performing her job well and whether she met the requirements for holding her post. 32. On 3 November 1995 the applicant informed the new principal of the School in writing of her meeting of the previous day with the Educational Inspector and his deputy. No action was taken in response. 33. Thereafter, the new principal alienated the applicant – her office phone was removed, the locks to the swimming pool were changed without her being provided with a set of keys and the supervision of the renovation of the swimming pool was entrusted to a subordinate even though it should allegedly have been her responsibility. The new principal also made enquiries as to the applicant's work performance. 34. On 24 November 1995 the human resources department of the School prepared a list of thirty-one employees allegedly without job descriptions. The applicant's name and post were among them. 35. On 7 December 1995 Hristo Botev radio aired the interview with the MP in which he implied that the applicant's post was one of those still being occupied by a member of Word of Life (see paragraph 22 above). 36. By an order of 28 December 1995 the applicant was dismissed, with immediate effect, on the grounds of not meeting the education and professional qualification requirements for the post of “swimming pool manager” (Article 328 § 1 (6) of the Labour Code). When she was served with the order, the applicant enquired as to which requirements she did not meet, but the new principal did not inform her. 37. On 27 May 1996 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Ruse District Court challenging the lawfulness of the dismissal. She also sought reinstatement in her previous post and compensation for loss of income. 38. The applicant maintained that her dismissal was directly related to her religious beliefs and her refusal to resign of her own accord. Such a reason for terminating her employment contract, she argued, was a violation of Article 8 § 3 of the Labour Code and Article 37 of the Bulgarian Constitution, which prohibited religious discrimination. 39. During the trial it was established that in December 1995 there had been a further amendment to the School's roster of posts, which the Ministry had approved in a letter of 30 January 1996, but with effect from 1 January 1996. The amended roster of posts no longer envisaged the post of “swimming pool manager”, but provided for the post of “sports complex organiser”. On an unspecified date a job description had also been prepared for the new post which set out the requirements for the holder of the post as follows: “university degree in sports, university degree in economics, as an exception – secondary education with specialisation in the relevant sport, qualified lifeguard, certified swimming instructor.” 40. The applicant argued before the Ruse District Court that the changes to the School's roster of posts should have taken place in accordance with standard practices and should not have been arbitrary. She claimed that the standard practice was to make changes to the roster of posts before the beginning of the academic year. The applicant also claimed that the changes were arbitrary because there had not been any objective necessity, stemming from the work being performed, to change the requirements for the post. 41. A hearing was held on 9 July 1996 at which the respondent party presented the new job description for the post of “sports complex organiser”. 42. At a hearing on 19 November 1996 several witnesses gave evidence. The Educational Inspector testified that the standard practice was to make changes to the roster of posts before the academic year unless an urgent need, usually of a financial nature, required otherwise. He confirmed that he had met with the applicant in early November 1995 in connection with the findings of the Regional Prosecutor's Office and that he had invited her to resign in view of the mounting discontent and public opinion. He stated that he had not enquired as to the activities of Word of Life at the School and that he was not familiar with the applicant's work performance. 43. Mrs M. also testified and informed the court that the new principal had threatened her with dismissal if she talked about her work at the School. She testified as to the meeting of 2 November 1995 with the Educational Inspector and stated that, faced with the claim of being a follower of Word of Life, she had denied it. She stated that she had broken down and cried during the meeting because she had two children to support and did not want to be left without a job. Mrs M. also informed the court that, as far as she was aware, the applicant had been a good and diligent employee, who had maintained good relations with the other members of staff. 44. A teacher from the School also testified at the hearing. He informed the court that since its construction in 1974 the swimming pool had always had a manager, but that there had never been a requirement of a university degree in sports for the post. The teacher also testified as to the content of the radio broadcast of 7 December 1995, in which the applicant had been singled out for dismissal by the MP. 45. On 25 November 1996 the applicant filed her written submissions with the Ruse District Court, contending that the evidence in the case supported her claim. She maintained that the School's roster of posts had been changed in the middle of the academic year with the sole aim of introducing such requirements for her post as to allow her dismissal on those grounds. 46. On 5 May 1997 the Ruse District Court dismissed the applicant's claims. In its judgment the court noted that the burden of proof as to whether the dismissal had been lawful or not lay with the School. It found, inter alia, that the School had complied with the procedure for changing the roster of posts and that the new job description for the post was in conformity with the standard job descriptions for such posts as approved by the Ministry. In addition, the court found that with the changes to the requirements for the post the School had envisaged the possibility that the person appointed to the job would not only manage and organise the activities of the swimming pool but could also act as a lifeguard or swimming instructor, a factor which the court deemed to be of “vital importance”. Based on these considerations, the court found that “there really had been preconditions [which entailed] changing the requirements for the post” and that the dismissal was therefore lawful. Separately, the Ruse District Court found that the applicant's claims that her dismissal had been motivated by her religious beliefs were not supported by the evidence in the case, that in fact the applicant had had very good relations with the other members of staff and that there were no complaints as to her work performance. The court also reasoned that the applicant's assertions in this respect were refuted by the fact that Mrs M. was still employed by the School. 47. On 27 June 1997 the applicant appealed against the judgment of the Ruse District Court. She claimed, inter alia, that its findings were not based on the evidence established in the case and were therefore unfounded. She claimed that the Ruse District Court had failed to make a proper assessment of key evidence, such as the testimonies of the Educational Inspector and Mrs M. 48. The applicant also questioned the grounds of the first-instance court for dismissing her claim and contended that they were frivolous and at odds with the substance of her complaint alleging religious discrimination. Firstly, she had never claimed that her personal relations with her colleagues had suffered as a result of her religious beliefs. Secondly, she submitted that the first-instance court's reasoning that there had been no discrimination against her, considering that Mrs M. was still employed by the School, was incorrect as there were various possible reasons for Mrs M.'s continued employment, such as the fact that the media had not singled her out for dismissal. 49. The applicant also claimed that the Ruse District Court had never analysed in substance her complaint alleging religious discrimination, but had dealt with the matter purely as an issue of unfair dismissal. 50. Finally, she maintained that the facts of the case clearly showed that following her refusal to resign on 2 November 1995 the School had simply tried to find a legal ground for dismissing her and that the chosen method was to change the requirements for the post she occupied so that she would become ineligible to hold it. 51. On 22 July 1997 the former principal of the School filed submissions with the Ruse Regional Court, attesting to a conversation she had had in June 1995 with the Educational Inspector. At the meeting he had identified four employees in respect of whom there had been “information that they were members of a sect” and whose employment he had insisted be terminated. At the time, the former principal had suggested that those employees resign of their own accord, but they had refused and no further action had been taken against them. It is unclear whether the applicant was one of those employees. 52. In a judgment of 23 July 1997 the Ruse Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court found, inter alia, that the School had both a need and the right to change the roster of posts and the requirements for the applicant's post and to dismiss her because she did not meet those requirements. It also found that the Ruse District Court had adequately addressed the applicant's allegations of religious discrimination and found them to be “totally and irrefutably ... irrelevant” based on the fact that she had maintained good relations with her colleagues and had been a good employee. Any allegations of subjective reasons or discriminatory grounds for her dismissal were therefore considered unfounded. 53. On 18 September 1997 the applicant filed a petition for review (cassation appeal), claiming, inter alia, that the lower courts had failed to properly evaluate the evidence before them and had never addressed the substance of her complaint alleging religious discrimination. She maintained that they had failed to assess the circumstances surrounding her dismissal and especially the events leading up to it, which clearly demonstrated the real reason why this legal method had been used to terminate her employment. 54. A hearing was conducted on 16 November 1998, which the applicant and her counsel, though duly summoned, did not attend. They presented their submissions to the court in writing. 55. In a final judgment of 9 December 1998 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court found, inter alia, that the applicant's arguments were unsubstantiated, and upheld the findings of the lower courts. It stressed that the School had the right to change the requirements for the post and that such changes were not subject to judicial review. In addition, it compared the duties and responsibilities of the posts of “swimming pool manager” and “sports complex organiser” and found them to be essentially the same. The Supreme Court of Cassation also noted that the old job description had lacked any education or professional qualification requirements for the post, while the new one had included such requirements. It reasoned, therefore, that the employer had simply filled a gap that had previously existed in that respect. 56. The court refused to address the remainder of the arguments of the applicant as it found them to be irrelevant to the proceedings and to the issue of the dismissal.

4. The applicant was born in 1977 in Sivas. 5. On 6 May 1998 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. 6. On 9 May 1998 he was brought before the public prosecutor and investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered his pre-trial detention. 7. On 11 May 1998 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with membership of an illegal organisation. 8. On 14 July 1998 due to the factual and legal connection between the cases, the court decided to joint the applicant’s case to other proceedings, involving seven accused (no. 1998/2). 9. On the same day the applicant was released pending trial. 10. On 29 July 2000 a change took place in the judges sitting as a bench at the Istanbul State Security Court and therefore, the next hearing was scheduled on 7 September 2000. 11. On 16 November 2000 the hearing was postponed to 20 February 2001 due the change in the assignment of judges at the trial court. 12. On 20 February 2001 the applicant was summoned to appear before the court in order to make his supplementary submissions for his defence, in view of a possible alteration of the offence he was charged with. 13. On 10 May 2001 the court observed that the registered writ having sent to the applicant, returned to the case file without a delivery. 14. On 30 November 2001 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an additional bill of indictment, charging the applicant with using explosives. 15. From the date of 10 May 2001 to 24 May 2007, despite the authorities’ efforts to have summoned the applicant, his whereabouts could not be established. During that period, the court ordered the Avcılar Police Department to make an enquiry to the applicant’s family about his non‑appearance. Subsequently, the court was informed that the applicant had gone abroad to study. 16. The trial court invited the prosecutor’s office to transmit the arrest warrant against the applicant to the customs with a view to securing his appearance before the court once he entered the country. 17. Following a constitutional amendment, State Security Courts were abolished and the applicant’s case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. 18. On 6 November 2007, in his defence submissions to the court, the applicant’s lawyer claimed that the applicant had already been tried by another chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court on the basis of the same facts and requested that the matter be examined further. 19. On 3 April 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the case file of the proceedings in question to verify the reason for the applicant’s previous conviction. 20. On 24 February 2009 the court ruled that the criminal proceedings be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred. On the same day, the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against the judgment. 21. According to the submissions in the case file, the proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.

5. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Manojlovce. He is the father of Jovica Mitić ("JM") who, on 8 October 2007, at the age of 28, hanged himself whilst serving a cumulative prison sentence of one year and nine months at Leskovac District Prison ("the District Prison"). 6. On 14 August 2007 JM was arrested by the Leskovac Police Department on suspicion of larceny. The same day the investigating judge of the Leskovac District Court ("the District Court") decided to open an investigation against him on the larceny charge and to detain him for a period of one month. 7. On 15 August 2007, after having been placed in a detention unit of the District Prison, JM was examined by DP, the prison doctor, and a detention medical file was opened at the prison infirmary. During the examination, JM said that he had been involved in four traffic accidents in the past two months in which he had injured sixth cervical vertebra. He denied any other recent injury, surgery or illness. During his detention, JM visited the prison doctor three times complaining of trouble sleeping (17, 22 and 24 August 2007). He was prescribed 10 mg of diazepam and 15 mg of flormidal once a day. 8. On 21 August 2007 the Police Department informed the prison authorities that various District Courts had previously issued several arrest warrants for JM in connection with prison sentences imposed on him earlier by three final judgments (six months ordered on 19 November 2003 for larceny and forgery; three months ordered on 16 May 2005 for enabling substance abuse; and one year ordered on 7 November 2005 for forgery). The prison authorities were thus requested to transfer JM from a detention unit to a prison unit to serve a cumulative prison sentence of one year and nine months. They were also warned that, being a recidivist and a fugitive, he should be placed in the high-security prison unit. 9. On 27 August 2007 JM was placed in the high-security prison unit. On 28 August 2007 he was examined by the prison doctor and by TI, the prison psychologist, as a part of the standard procedure. During the examination JM denied any family history of mental illness and said that prior to imprisonment he had used sedatives for his sleeping problems. In her record of the examination, the prison psychologist described him as introverted, dishonest and dissimulative. 10. JM was examined again on 4 September 2007 for what appears to be muscle pain (the medical file submitted by the Government is partly illegible). On 21 September 2007 he complained of a "twinge" and the prison doctor discovered bruises on his left shoulder, shoulder blades and right upper arm. The doctor considered the bruises to be three days old. JM refused to say how he got these bruises and it would appear that he refused to file a formal complaint with the prison authorities. The doctor observed that he appeared nervous. She prescribed ibuprofen and 10 mg of diazepam twice a day. 11. On 25 September 2007 JM failed to show up for a scheduled medical check-up. On 2 October 2007 JM visited the prison doctor concerning a dermato-venereal condition and an appointment was made for him with a specialist outside the prison. Two days later he complained of insomnia and minor anxiety. He refused to see the prison psychologist and the prison doctor increased the daily dose of diazepam to 10 mg three times per day and again prescribed 15 mg of flormidal once a day. 12. On 3 October 2007 JM attempted to escape together with three other inmates. On 5 October 2007 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against each of them and a disciplinary measure of placement in solitary confinement for a period of 15 days was imposed on each. 13. Before being placed in solitary confinement, JM was examined by the prison doctor, who established that he was fit to undergo solitary confinement with the continuation of previously prescribed daily therapy (paragraph 11 above). During his stay in solitary confinement JM was visited by the prison doctor once a day and was receiving his therapy administered by a member of the prison medical staff. He did not complain of any health problem. The cell in which he was placed was equipped with CCTV which covered the entrance door of the cell and part of the toilet door. It did not make video recordings but only projected images to a screen located in the office of the head of the prison guards. 14. On 7 October 2007 the applicant came to visit his son but was informed that the visit was not allowed because JM had been placed in solitary confinement following disciplinary proceedings against him (paragraph 31 below). He was allowed to leave a package which was given to JM the same day. 15. Early in the morning of 8 October 2007 JM was served with breakfast. At approximately 8.15 a.m. he was visited by the prison doctor and a member of the prison staff. Between 8.45 a.m and 9.00 a.m. a member of the prison medical staff gave him his daily treatment. He later recalled that JM’s demeanour was calm and responsive. 16. At around 12 noon the same day JM was discovered by a prison guard and a correctional officer hanging from the heating pipe in his cell by a ligature fashioned out of a bed sheet. At 12.05 p.m. he was pronounced dead. 17. At 12.20 p.m. on the same day the investigating judge of the District Court conducted an on-site investigation during which the cell was secured by two police officers. The deputy public prosecutor was also present. Photographs were taken of the cell and of JM’s body. The on-site investigation was closed at 2.00 p.m. The investigating judge made a record of the investigation, including a description of JM’s cell and the items found therein, as well as of the reconstruction of the events of that morning based on an interview with the prison warden. The written statements of the prison staff who had contact with JM, given to the prison warden, were also included in the file. JM’s family was informed of his death the same day. 18. The same day the police questioned the prison guard and the correctional officer who had discovered JM’s body. The prison guard said that he had arrived at work at 7.45 a.m. and had visited all the cells, including that of JM. Everything appeared normal. He further said that he had seen JM alive in his cell at 10.50 a.m. The correctional officer said that he had last seen JM on 4 October 2007. His impression was that, while JM was an introverted person, there was nothing peculiar in his demeanour. 19. The police also interviewed the prison doctor, the member of the prison medical staff who was giving treatment to JM and two other members of the prison staff who had had contact with him. They maintained that JM had never disclosed any suicidal tendencies and that he had seemed relaxed the last time they had seen him. The official record of all the interviews was made. 20. At 10.00 p.m. that day Dr RK performed an autopsy on JM’s body, at the request of the investigating judge. The doctor noted that he had been informed by the investigating authorities that JM’s body was discovered at around 10.00 a.m. He went on to describe the external appearance of the body and noted that the ligature had left a twenty-five by thirty millimetres wide trace on the front of JM’s neck and a thirty by forty millimetres wide trace on the back and sides of his neck. He further observed an oblong purple bruise on JM’s neck; it did not disappear when pressed. The doctor further noted an old bruise, which measured twenty by fifteen millimetres on JM’s right upper arm. He concluded, based on its colour and appearance, that it was an old injury. The internal examination did not show, in his opinion, any anomalies. The histopathological examination of JM’s internal organs had shown severe blood stasis, particularly in the lungs and kidneys. The microscopic examination of his neck subcutaneous soft tissues revealed fresh bleeding. The toxicology screening revealed no traces of poison; some traces of alcohol were discovered. The autopsy report concluded that JM’s death had occurred between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. as a result of asphyxia caused by hanging. The report included photographs. 21. Before the autopsy report was received by the court and the applicant, on 9 October 2007 the applicant requested a second autopsy. He was informed the same day by the investigating judge that a second autopsy could not be ordered before the report of the first had been received. JM’s body was given to his family the same day. 22. On 9 October 2007 one of the inmates who was also in solitary confinement as a result of the escape attempt (paragraph 12 above) informed the prison doctor and the correctional officer, in two separate visits of which official records were made, that during a daily walk in the prison yard, JM had told him that he planned to stage a suicide attempt in order to be transferred to the Special Prison Hospital in Belgrade. The inmate expressed his regret for failing to inform the prison authorities of JM’s intentions. 23. The same day, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the prison warden and unspecified prison officers for the alleged murder of his son and abuse of authority. The applicant argued, in particular, that his son had been unjustly and arbitrarily punished for the alleged escape attempt as he was the only one who had been punished with solitary confinement which had caused psychological suffering and his eventual suicide. On the same day, the public prosecutor requested a report of the events of 8 October 2007 from the prison authorities and that police officers question all persons indicated in the applicant’s complaint, in particular about JM’s treatment in prison and why he had been placed in solitary confinement. 24. At the request of the public prosecutor, the police again questioned the prison guard and the correctional officer who had discovered JM’s body, the prison doctor, the member of the medical staff who had administered treatment to JM and two other prison officers who had had direct contact with him. They all reiterated their earlier statements that, in particular, there had been nothing peculiar in JM’s behaviour that would have indicated that he was suicidal. 25. On 16 October 2007 the police report was sent to the prosecutor’s office. It also contained a written statement of the prison warden dated 15 October 2007, the record of visits JM had received and decisions concerning disciplinary proceedings against three other inmates who had participated in the escape attempt (paragraph 12 above). The prison warden submitted that JM’s treatment was in compliance with the prison rules. JM had visiting rights (he had received eight visits from his family and three from his lawyer) and had received adequate medical treatment. On 19 December 2007 the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute. 26. On 28 December 2007 the applicant filed an indictment with the District Court against the prison, the prison doctor and nine other prison officers for alleged murder, having taken over the prosecution of the case as a “subsidiary prosecutor” (paragraph 30 below). He maintained his allegations in his criminal complaint, adding that the prison doctor had made a wrong assessment in deciding that his son was fit for placement in solitary confinement. On 4 January 2008 the investigating judge of the District Court requested the prison authorities to submit a report on JM’s treatment in the prison (in particular, as regards his visiting rights, his medical treatment and any disciplinary proceedings against him). The investigating judge also requested a file from the public prosecutor’s office. 27. On 11 January 2008 the prison authorities sent the requested report to the investigating judge. It contained, in particular, the statement of the prison doctor dated 9 January 2008: she gave an account of JM’s medical treatment in prison and stated that, while he had not requested medical assistance while in solitary confinement, she had visited him once per day in accordance with prison regulations. 28. On 14 January 2008, after examining all the documents, the investigating judge expressed the opinion that there were not enough elements for an indictment and that the investigation should be discontinued. 29. On 23 January 2008 a chamber of three judges of the District Court accepted that conclusion and decided not to prosecute. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Serbia on 12 March 2008.

4. The applicants were born in 1955, 1934 and 1968 respectively, and live in Miskolc, Hungary. 5. In 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants and other suspects. In the context of a series of complicated economic offences, they were charged with several counts of aggravated fraud, tax fraud, forgery of documents, bribery, fraudulent bankruptcy and accounting crimes. In the ensuing proceedings the applicants were assisted by defence counsel of their choice. 6. On 25 November 1996 the first applicant’s bank accounts were frozen in order to secure the eventual confiscation of any criminal profit he might have made. Simultaneously, the applicants’ homes were searched. On 10 June 1997 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court changed the decision of 25 November 1996 and extended the freezing measure to include all of the first applicant’s assets. 7. On 23 June 1995 the Miskolc District Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment. The charges concerned altogether eight defendants. 8. After having held 30 hearings between 17 June 1997 and 7 July 1998, on 8 July 1998 the Miskolc District Court convicted the applicants of several counts of fraud, tax fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, forgery of documents as well as accounting crimes, while acquitting them of other charges. The first applicant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and to the confiscation of his frozen property in the value of 300 million Hungarian forints; the second and the third applicants were sentenced to three and a half years’ and three years’ imprisonment respectively. In the reasoning of its 76-page judgment, the District Court relied on evidence given by numerous witnesses, several opinions prepared by expert accountants, tax advisers and engineers, and documentary evidence. 9. In October 1998 the applicants submitted their initial and, on 14 May 1999, their detailed appeal. Meanwhile, on 6 January 1999 the Heves County Regional Court was appointed to hear the case, for reasons of incompatibility, instead of the competent Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court. 10. After having held a hearing on 22 June 1999, on 20 September 2000 the Heves County Regional Court re-characterised part of the offences committed by the applicants, acquitted them of some charges, and reduced the first applicant’s prison term to five years and six months, and the second applicant’s term to three years. For the remainder, it upheld the first-instance judgment. 11. On 29 December 2000 the second and third applicants filed a petition for review. On 6 March 2002 the Supreme Court acquitted them of the charge of tax fraud and upheld the remainder of the second-instance judgment in their respect. 12. The first applicant’s repeated requests for a retrial were finally refused on 21 May 2002.

5. The applicant was born in 1974 and is now serving his sentence in the Tula Region. 6. At about 11.30 a.m. on 10 April 2003 the cashier desk of the Petelino psychiatric hospital in the Tula Region was robbed by three men armed with a submachine gun and a sawn-off shotgun. Two police patrols arrived at the scene less than five minutes later. 7. The police officers who apprehended the applicant described the events in the following manner. Officer B. stated, in particular (his statement to the investigator is dated 17 June 2003): “I saw three men cross the motorway and disappear behind the forest shelter belt... I started running across the forest to intercept the criminals. At that moment I heard a burst of submachine gun fire. As I emerged out of the forest, I saw two men in front of me who later turned out to be K. and [the applicant]. K. wore light-blue jeans and a dark jacket, and [the applicant] wore dark tracksuit bottoms. K. carried a Kalashnikov submachine gun with no butt, and [the applicant] had a sawn-off rifle ... I told the criminals to freeze, drop the guns and offer no resistance. K. and [the applicant] ... crossed the motorway. Then I shot a few rounds in burst mode in the direction of the criminals but above their heads and told them again to freeze. [The applicant] fell on the roadside, and the rifle flew out of his hands ... K. turned around, saw the police car and fired several shots in its direction. Then he slipped and fell. I ran up to him, pointed my gun at him and told him to stop resistance and drop the weapon. The muzzle of his submachine gun was pointed at my face, so I kicked the gun out of his hand and used physical force on him in accordance with section 12 of the Police Act ... During that time, [Officer M.] was trying to tie up [the applicant] because he was trying to get up and run away ... During the arrest we had to use physical force on K., [the applicant], and Sh. because they actively resisted us. As a result, they sustained injuries but I cannot say what injuries and where because they were covered in mud.” 8. Officer M., in his statement to the investigator made on 11 April 2003, testified as follows: “Three men were running some seventy metres ahead of us... One of them – the one who was a bit taller, in light-blue jeans and black jacket – turned to us and fired a burst from his submachine gun in our direction ... [Officer B.] fired two shots at the running men ... The men had already crossed to the roadside in the direction of Novomoskovsk ... but the man in tracksuit bottoms fell on the roadside and covered his head with his hands. The man in blue jeans and black jacket fired a burst at the police car and started going down towards the forest but slipped and fell on his back ... He pointed his submachine gun at [Officer B.] who, in turned, pointed his gun at him and told him to drop the weapon. Meanwhile, I ran up to the second man who had fallen on the ground, covered his head with his hands and pushed away his sawn-off rifle ... and I told [Officer S.] to cuff his hands which he did. I ran up to [Officer B.] and told the man in blue jeans to throw the gun away. The man reclined on his back and put the gun aside. I kicked it away and, using martial arts, bent his arm behind his back, led him away and put him on the ground where handcuffs were applied to him ...” 9. On the same day Officer S. testified in the same vein: “... the man in tracksuit bottoms fell on the roadside and covered his head with his hands... [Officer M.] and I ran up to the second man who had fallen on the ground and covered his head; [Officer M.] kicked aside the sawn-off rifle and told me to use handcuffs on him which I did ...” 10. It appears from Officer Shch.'s statement of 15 July 2003 that he did not take part in the applicant's arrest: “... [Officers B., M., and S.] were running after them through the forest. [The applicant] fell on the roadside and [Officer S.] or someone else, I do not remember who, arrested him ...” 11. According to the applicant, he had fallen to the ground immediately after the police started firing, and covered his head with his arms. The applicant claimed that a police officer had approached him and kicked him in the head. His head had jerked and his face had hit gravel, chipping two teeth. 12. The applicant and two other men were brought to the Shatskoye police station in the Leninskiy district of the Tula Region. 13. The applicant submitted that he had been brought to an office on the second floor. Three riot-squad (“OMON”) and two operational officers had entered the room. They had worn camouflage fatigues and woven hats. The OMON officers had made him kneel down with his hands cuffed behind his back. The officers had kicked and punched him, dealing blows all over his body, including his face and lips. One officer had hit him several times with a chair leg, another officer had straightened his right leg out and dealt a strong blow on his knee. He had been told to strip down and an officer had pushed the chair leg into his rectum. 14. At 8 p.m. the investigator Mr Bu. carried out a visual examination of the applicant's person in the presence of two attesting witnesses and a chemistry specialist. He noted that the applicant's face was covered with a “grey substance” and also with a “blood-like brown substance”. One of his front teeth was chipped. There were no injuries on the anterior side of his body, but his other side was covered with bruises and haematomas. The applicant had a bruise on his right hip and abrasions on both knees. 15. On the following day, 11 April 2003, the applicant was placed in the temporary detention ward of the Leninskiy district police station. The applicant wrote a complaint to the prosecutor about the beatings. 16. On 13 April 2003 the investigator Mr Bu. refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant's allegations. Referring to the arresting officers Mr Shch. and Mr B. who claimed that the applicant had forcefully resisted the arrest, and to the statements by two operational officers who denied that the applicant had been beaten at the police station, the investigator adopted the view that the visible injuries had been caused during the arrest. 17. At 11.15 a.m. on 15 April 2003 a medical expert commissioned by the investigator of the Leninskiy district prosecutor's office Mr M. carried out a detailed examination of the applicant's injuries. The expert recorded multiple bruises and abrasions on the applicant's face, lips, left ear, right temple and cheek-bone, back, arms, wrists, right hip and shin, haemorrhage in the sclera of both eyes, and a broken tooth on the upper jaw. According to the expert, those injuries had been caused by no fewer than thirteen blows of a hard blunt object and no earlier than seven days before the examination. 18. On 18 April 2003 the applicant was transferred from the Leninskiy district police station to remand centre no. IZ-71/1 in Tula. On arrival at the remand centre he was examined by a doctor. According to the medical certificate of the same date, the applicant had a bruise around his right eye, as well as an abrasion and an injury on his right hip. He told the doctor that he had been beaten at the police station. 19. On 19 June 2003 a deputy Leninskiy district prosecutor issued a new decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. The text of the decision was identical, word by word, to that of the decision of 13 April 2003. 20. The applicant complained to a higher prosecutor. On 19 February 2004 the acting Leninskiy district prosecutor upheld the decisions of 13 April and 19 June 2003 as lawful and justified. 21. In November 2003, counsel for the applicant complained about the ill-treatment to the Uzlovaya town prosecutor, the Tula regional prosecutor, the Prosecutor General's Office, the Internal Security Department of the Tula Regional Police, the Federal Security Service, and other authorities. On 11 August and 22 December 2003 and 27 January 2004 the applicant also sent complaints about ill-treatment to the Tula regional prosecutor. 22. On 25 December 2003 a deputy Tula regional prosecutor replied to the applicant's lawyer that his complaints about ill-treatment had already been examined and that a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings had been made. 23. On 18 June 2004 the applicant complained to the trial court about ill‑treatment and the authorities' failure to investigate his allegations. It is unclear whether any formal response was received. 24. On 2 September 2004 Officers B., M., S., and Shch. and the investigator Mr Bu. were heard in the witness stand by the trial court. Officer Shch. stated that the defendants had not offered any resistance during the arrest and that they had been immediately handcuffed. He denied using any physical force during the arrest and pointed out that K. had been dirty but had had no visible injuries. Officer B. submitted that no force had been employed but he had bent K.'s arms and handcuffed him. Officer S. confirmed that, once on the ground, the defendants had no longer resisted the arrest and that there was no attempt to punish them after the arrest. Officer M. testified that one of the defendants had been handcuffed, and the other's hands had been tied with a belt. The investigator Mr Bu. said that he was unable to remember any injuries on the defendants. 25. On 10 January 2005 the applicant challenged the investigator's decision of 13 April 2003 before a court of general jurisdiction. He submitted that the inquiry had been incomplete because the investigator had never interviewed him about the alleged ill-treatment. The statements by the arresting officers had been contradictory: in the criminal proceedings they had denied that he had offered any resistance, whereas the investigator had found that the injuries had been caused during the arrest. The applicant enclosed the medical certificates dated 10 April and 15 April 2003. 26. On 25 February 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of the Tula Region dismissed the applicant's complaint without taking cognisance of the merits. It held, firstly, that the contested decision did not restrict the applicant's constitutional rights or impede his access to justice and therefore was not amenable to review under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly, it stated that an inquiry into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been carried out in the framework of criminal proceedings against him and therefore concerned the evidence in the criminal case which was pending before the trial court. The District Court declared itself incompetent to examine the matters which were being examined by the trial court. 27. The applicant was not present or represented at the hearing before the Leninskiy District Court. He filed an appeal, in which he complained that the District Court had not ensured his representation at the hearing and failed to examine the evidence of ill-treatment he had submitted. 28. On 13 April 2005 the Tula Regional Court upheld, in summary fashion, the District Court's judgment. It noted that there had been no violation of the applicant's right to defence because both he and counsel for him had been informed of the hearing date but had not sought leave to appear. 29. On 12 April 2003 the Leninskiy District Court of the Tula Region remanded the applicant in custody for an initial two-month period. 30. On 16 April 2003 the applicant was charged with an armed robbery of the hospital. 31. On 9 June, 6 August, 14 October, and 29 December 2003 the Uzlovaya Town Court extended the applicant's detention until 15 February 2004. On 13 February 2004 it granted a further extension until 10 April 2004. 32. On 9 April 2004 the case against the applicant and his co-defendants was submitted to the Uzlovaya Town Court for trial. 33. On 16 April 2004 the applicant complained to the Tula regional prosecutor that, following the expiry of the last detention order on 10 April 2004, there was no legal basis for his continued detention. He did not receive a reply. 34. On 23 April 2004 the Uzlovaya Town Court gave a decision fixing the date of the preliminary hearing. The decision did not mention the question of the applicant's detention. 35. At the preliminary hearing on 13 May 2004 the Town Court ruled that the bill of indictment was procedurally defective in that it contained incorrect information about the applicant's personal details. The court decided to return the case to the prosecutor for five days so that he could remedy these defects. It also rejected applications for release by the applicant and his co-defendants, noting that the preventive measure had been imposed lawfully and that there were no grounds for varying it. 36. On 17 May 2004 the prosecutor again sent the case for trial. On 31 May 2004 the Uzlovaya Town Court set the opening date for the trial and held that all the defendants should remain in custody, without citing any grounds for the continuation of their detention on remand or setting a time-limit for it. 37. On 4 November 2004 the Uzlovaya Town Court heard the prosecutor's application for a further extension of the applicant's detention. The applicant and his co-defendants applied for release, maintaining that the initial six-month period of their detention pending trial had expired on 9 October 2004. 38. The Town Court held that the six-month period of detention should be calculated from the date when the case had been sent for trial again, that is, from 17 May 2004. It extended all the co-defendants' detention by three months, citing as the ground the complexity of the case and the large number of victims and witnesses who had not yet been examined. The applicant filed an appeal. He submitted that, if the six-month period were to be calculated from 17 May 2004, his detention from 9 April to 17 May 2004 must have been unlawful. On 17 December 2004 the Tula Regional Court rejected his appeal in summary fashion, endorsing the reasoning of the Town Court. 39. On 10 February 2005 the Uzlovaya Town Court granted a further extension of the defendants' detention until 17 May 2005. On 15 April 2005 the Tula Regional Court upheld that decision on an appeal by the applicant. 40. On 19 July 2005 the Uzlovaya Town Court convicted the defendants of four robberies and sentenced the applicant to ten years' imprisonment in a high-security institution. On 25 January 2006 the Tula Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 41. The applicant submitted copies of three articles published in the regional press in 2004. The articles described the robbery of the hospital and two other robberies imputed to the applicant and his co-defendants. The perpetrators were described as “jackals from Petelino”, “robbers” or a “gang”. The same photograph accompanied all three articles; the face and upper body of the person on the photograph were covered with a jacket.

9. The applicant, who was born in 1942, settled in Sweden in the second half of the 1980s. His mother tongue is Finnish. 10. On 3 December 1991 the applicant was charged before the District Court (tingsrätten) of Gothenburg with aggravated drunken driving and driving without a driver’s licence. According to the record of the police investigation, he did not request the assistance of a public defence counsel. On 9 January 1992 the District Court, apparently of its own motion, appointed the lawyer H. as public defence counsel for the applicant. 11. On 22 April 1992 the applicant was charged with another incident of aggravated drunken driving and driving without a driver’s licence. According to the record of the police investigation, he stated that he wished the lawyer S. to be appointed as public defence counsel. 12. On 31 August 1992 the applicant was charged with yet another incident of aggravated drunken driving and driving without a driver’s licence. According to the record of the police investigation, he did not wish to be assisted by public defence counsel. 13. On 22 December 1992 the applicant was charged with causing a traffic accident, leaving the scene of the accident and driving without a driver’s licence. According to the record of the police investigation, he did not wish to be assisted by public defence counsel. 14. On 21 January 1993 the applicant was charged with possessing a knife in a public place. According to the record of the police investigation, he did not wish to be assisted by public defence counsel. 15. On 22 January 1993 the public prosecutor applied for a detention order regarding the applicant, who was suspected of attempted aggravated assault. According to the prosecutor’s application, the applicant wished to have S. as public defence counsel. At the subsequent hearing, the lawyer P.S. replaced, with the District Court’s permission, H. as public defence counsel. According to the minutes from the hearing, the applicant requested that S., a Swedish lawyer who had previously assisted him and who knew Finnish, should be appointed as his public defence counsel, whereupon the judge informed him that he should give reasons for his request in writing. The court rejected the application for a detention order and released the applicant. Subsequently he did not submit a written request for a replacement of defence counsel. 16. On 9 February 1993 the applicant was charged with attempted aggravated assault and possessing a knife in a public place. 17. When scheduling the main hearing, the District Court had telephone contact with the applicant who reiterated his request to have S. appointed as his public defence counsel. The court asked the applicant to contact H. in the matter. 18. Before the District Court the applicant apparently lodged some submissions independently of counsel H. It appears that these submissions were all in Finnish, the applicant invoking his right under the Nordic Language Convention (Nordiska språkkonventionen) to submit pleadings in his mother tongue. All the written submissions were translated into Swedish and entered into the case-file. 19. At the main hearing on 10 May 1994 the applicant was assisted by H. as public defence counsel. Neither the minutes of the hearing nor the judgment delivered in the case contains any indication that the applicant at that time expressed a wish to have his public defence counsel replaced. In addition to counsel’s oral submissions, the applicant defended himself orally in Finnish via a court-appointed interpreter. He denied some of the offences he was charged with, confessed some and declared that he neither confessed nor denied the remainder of the charges. 20. By a judgment of 24 May 1994 the applicant was convicted on all the above-mentioned counts and sentenced to 1 year and 2 months in prison. He was also ordered to pay 450 Swedish kronor (SEK) of the total litigation costs in the case. These included H.’s fees which amounted to SEK 10,395 for, inter alia, ten hours of work. The remainder of the costs was borne by the State. 21. The applicant appealed against the judgment in respect of the charges he had denied. The prosecution also appealed, seeking a more severe sentence. The prosecution stated that the applicant was in great need of public counsel for his defence, although he clearly did not wish to be represented by H. 22. On 23 August 1994, in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) for Western Sweden, the applicant requested that counsel H. be replaced by S. The applicant reiterated that he had previously been assisted by S. and that he was able to communicate with him in Finnish. S. had declared that he was willing to assist the applicant as public defence counsel. 23. On 6 September 1994 the applicant’s request was refused, the appellate court considering that sufficient reasons for counsel to be replaced had not been presented. On 30 November 1994 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision. 24. As in the proceedings before the District Court, the applicant apparently lodged some submissions in Finnish before the appellate court, all of which were translated into Swedish and entered into the case-file. 25. The Court of Appeal heard the case on 22 May 1995. H. attended the hearing as the applicant’s counsel. There is no indication in the minutes of the hearing that the applicant opposed H.’s presence. Having heard H.’s oral pleadings, the Court of Appeal gave the applicant the floor via a court-appointed interpreter. 26. On 6 June 1995 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence. It also decided that the litigation costs in the appeal proceedings – including H.’s fees of SEK 3,455 – should be paid by the State. 27. On 23 August 1995 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.

5. The applicants were born in 1947, 1973 and 1977 respectively. While the first applicant lives in Sarajevo, her sons, the second and the third applicants, live in Belgrade, in Serbia. 6. On 24 June 1983 the local authorities expropriated an apartment in Sarajevo which was occupied (but not owned) by the applicants. The local planning authorities were ordered to allocate the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment. This decision entered into force on 21 October 1983. 7. On 6 April 1987 the first applicant initiated court proceedings seeking the allocation to her by the local planning authorities of a suitable replacement apartment. 8. On 29 April 1998 the Sarajevo First Municipal Court held that, while it was clear that the local planning authorities were required to allocate the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment, the courts of law had no power to designate such an apartment. The Sarajevo First Municipal Court, consequently, declined jurisdiction. This decision entered into force on 31 March 1999 when the Sarajevo Cantonal Court upheld it. 9. On 24 November 1999 the first applicant complained to the Human Rights Chamber about non-enforcement of the administrative decision of 24 June 1983. 10. On 7 May 2003 the Human Rights Chamber found breaches of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (a constituent Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) to allocate, or to cause the local planning authorities to allocate, to the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment at the latest within one month. The Human Rights Chamber awarded the first applicant, in pecuniary damage, 18,200 convertible marks (BAM) (approximately 9,300 euros (EUR)) plus BAM 200 (approximately EUR 100) per month from June 2003 until the end of the month in which she was to be allocated a suitable replacement apartment. She was further awarded BAM 3,000 (approximately EUR 1,550) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Lastly, she was awarded default interest on the above amounts at an annual rate of 10%. This decision entered into force on 4 September 2003. 11. On 24 March 2005 the local planning authorities offered the first applicant a tenancy of an apartment in Sarajevo. On 31 March 2005 the applicant rejected the offer. 12. On 1 July 2005 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina paid the following amounts to the first applicant: BAM 18,200 in respect of pecuniary damage, BAM 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and default interest on the above amounts at the rate indicated in the Human Rights Chamber’s decision. 13. On 15 September 2005 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina requested the interpretation of the order to allocate, or to cause the local planning authorities to allocate, to the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment set out in the Human Rights Chamber’s decision. 14. On 15 December 2005 the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber, the Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, explained that in accordance with the Human Rights Chamber’s decision the first applicant should be given ownership of a suitable apartment and not only a tenancy. 15. On 19 September 2006 the local planning authorities offered the first applicant a tenancy of the same apartment as on 24 March 2005. The applicant has not accepted the offer. 16. On 8 November 2006 the first applicant filed a criminal complaint against the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina (non-enforcement of a final and enforceable decision of the Human Rights Chamber constitutes a criminal offence). It would appear that no decision has been taken in that regard. 17. On 13 March 2008 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina paid an additional amount of BAM 10,069.76 to the first applicant in respect of pecuniary damage (that is, BAM 200 per month for the period from June 2003 until September 2006 plus default interest on those monthly amounts at the rate indicated in the Human Rights Chamber’s decision).

5. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Bratislava. 6. The applicant's family owned a plot of agricultural land located in the Prešov area. At the beginning of the 1960s the State put the land at the disposal of an agricultural cooperative. The applicant's family remained the owners of the land in name (nuda proprietas). 7. In 1964 the right to use the land was conferred on the Slovakian Union of Fruiterers and Gardeners. The area where the plot is located was turned into a “garden community” consisting of individual gardens which were put at the disposal of third parties, members of the above Union (“gardeners”). 8. On 14 January 2000 the gardeners requested under section 7(1) of Law no. 64/1997 that the ownership relationship in respect of their gardens be settled by the Prešov District Office in a land consolidation procedure under section 7(4) of that Act. 9. On 10 January 2002 the District Office made a formal announcement under section 18(1) of Law no. 64/1997 of the commencement of the land consolidation procedure under section 7(4) of the Act. The announcement contained a register of the original ownership and a surveyor's plan concerning the current state of the land (“the preliminary inventory”). 10. Three land owners objected to the preliminary inventory. The applicant's legal predecessor, Ms J. Salusová, objected that she did not own one of the plots concerned. On 17 June 2002 the District Office dismissed the objection, as the propriety certificate clearly indicated that she co-owned the relevant plot. 11. On 3 October 2002 the District Office approved the preliminary inventory under section 9(4) of Law no. 64/1997. 12. On 27 October 2002 Ms J. Salusová died. On 20 May 2003 a notary authorised by a court confirmed that the applicant had inherited a share in Ms J. Salusová's land used by the gardeners. 13. On 13 February 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that Law no. 64/1997 ran contrary to his constitutional right to own property. On 28 February 2003 a constitutional judge informed the applicant that individuals lack standing to initiate proceedings concerning conflict of laws. 14. In a letter of 21 March 2003 the District Office invited the applicant under section 10(1) of Law no. 64/1997 to state whether he preferred to be compensated by being granted a substitute plot or paid an amount of money in lieu in respect of his title to the plot. The letter contained a list of specific plots that the administrator of the State's real property, the Slovak Real Estate Fund, had proposed as possible substitute plots in the applicant's case. In response, on 9 May 2003, the applicant rejected the proposed plots. 15. On 5 August 2003 the District Office decided on the compensation for the landowners. The decision was not subject to appeal. It was envisaged that the gardeners would subsequently acquire title to their gardens. 16. On 27 January 2004 public prosecutor lodged an objection and proposed that the administrative authority quash its decision on the matter of compensation, since one of the landowners had been omitted from the procedure. On 26 February 2004 the District Land Office in Prešov granted the objection. Subsequently it took further steps with a view to eliminating shortcomings in the procedure. 17. On 10 April 2006 the Slovak Real Estate Fund proposed new substitute lands as the release of the former substitute lands was suspended. 18. On 3 July 2007 two other heirs of Ms J. Salusová asserted their right in respect of their predecessor's land. On 18 September 2007 they informed the administrative authority that they did not accept the substitute land offered to them. 19. On 4 December 2008 the District Land Office delivered a new decision on compensation under sections 10(3)(a) and 11 of Law no. 64/1997. It indicates that the applicant is to receive 423.72 euros (EUR) for 1,702 square metres of land owned by him. That amount corresponds to EUR 0.249 per square metre. 20. The plots in issue have been entered in land register as arable land and grass-grown land. They were originally outside the town's built-up area. The Prešov municipality's zoning plan approved on 30 January 2008 indicates that the area including the applicant's land now falls within a zone designated for family housing. The relevant entry in the register was amended and indicates that the plots are within the built-up area of Prešov. 21. On 5 April 2009 the Forensic Engineering Institute in Žilina, at the Government's request, made a valuation of the applicant's land used by the gardeners. The opinion states, inter alia, that the land is situated within the constructible area of the town of Prešov, which is the seat of regional authorities and institutions. It is located some two kilometres from the bus and railway station. There is a fifteen metre-wide protection zone on the land along an aerial high-voltage line. Part of the land is situated on a steep slope. 22. The experts noted that four gardens in the area had been put up for sale at prices of between EUR 24.22 and EUR 39.25 per square metre. However, the price included also the gardeners' investments, such as huts, vegetation and other facilities. The institution concluded that the market value of the land was EUR 7.67 per square metre and its rental value EUR 0.532 per square metre a year. 23. The applicant disagreed with that valuation as it did not reflect the actual value of his land. In particular, he objected that only one method had been used. The experts had failed to take into account his land's development potential in view of the existing zoning plan. A contract submitted by the applicant indicates that on 27 August 2008 he and other co-owners had sold different land situated in the vicinity of that which the gardeners use, for the equivalent of EUR 33.19 per square metre. Finally, the applicant argued that the aerial power line had been erected without the consent of the landowners. It could not be ruled out that the line would be removed in the near future.

4. Ms Valentyna Mykolayivna Derkach, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962. Mr Mykola Ivanovych Palek, is also a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1957. Both applicants reside in the town of Vyshgorod, Ukraine. 5. In 2001-2002 the applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings in the domestic local courts seeking the recovery of salary arrears and other payments against their former employer-the State-owned “Atomspetsbud” company which carried out construction work in Chernobyl, more precisely in the zone subject to compulsory evacuation. 6. By a decision of the Vyshgorodsky District Court of Kiev Region of 5 March 2002, Ms Valentyna Derkach was awarded UAH 9,133 (the equivalent of 1,405.08 euros [“EUR”]) in salary arrears and compensation. The decision came into force. On 22 April 2002 the Slavutsky District Department of the State Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings. 7. By a decision of the Vyshgorodsky District Court of Kiev Region of 15 May 2002, Mr Mykola Palek was awarded UAH 15,476 (the equivalent of EUR 2,380.92) in salary arrears and compensation. The decision came into force. On 8 August 2002 the Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings. 8. On 29 June 2002 the Ministry of Energy decided to wind-up the debtor company, given its unprofitability. On 18 July 2002 a liquidation commission was established. 9. In December 2002 the writs of execution in both cases were forwarded to the liquidation commission. 10. The judgments remain unenforced, in particular due to the fact that the debtor's property could not be attached to enforce the judgments. Attachment would have required a special authorisation of the Ministry for Emergencies due to the location of the debtor's property in the Chernobyl area, contaminated by radiation. Authorisation was not granted.

7. On the night of 2 December 1997 a customer of a bar was brutally beaten up after leaving with a friend to go home. The friend who accompanied him witnessed the start of the attack from a distance. The victim later died from his injuries. 8. A preliminary investigation into the murder was opened on the following day. 9. On 11 December 1997 the applicant, who had also been in the bar on the night in question, was arrested and questioned by the police. He signed a statement confessing to having beaten the victim, which he subsequently retracted claiming that it was extracted from him under duress. 10. On 12 December 1997 the applicant was charged with murder and detained on remand. Immediately thereafter, the applicant was questioned by an investigator. In the presence of a State-appointed attorney and after having been informed of his right not to give testimony the applicant reiterated the statement he had given on the previous day and made a full confession. 11. During the preliminary investigation various witnesses were questioned, DNA tests were performed on the applicant's clothes and a crime scene experiment was conducted. Various experts' opinions were also obtained, such as to assess the applicant's physical and mental state, as well as his eyesight. A medical examination of the victim was also conducted. In addition, an agronomical expertise was commissioned to determine what the foliage cover of the trees was at the time of the murder and whether that could have impaired the witness's line of sight. A meteorological expertise was also obtained to assess whether the weather could have had a similar hampering effect. 12. On an unspecified date, the Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment for murder against the applicant with the Plovdiv Regional Court. 13. Subsequently, the Plovdiv Regional Court remitted the case back to the investigation stage on at least two occasions. 14. Revised indictments were entered against the applicant on 13 January and 14 October 1999. The final indictment against the applicant was for murder with extreme viciousness. The prosecution claimed that the applicant had beaten up the victim after he had refused to lend him money to pay his bill in the bar. 15. The Plovdiv Regional Court conducted six hearings between 30 January and 3 December 2001. 16. In a judgment of 3 December 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court, acting as the court of first instance, acquitted the applicant. According to the minutes, it then ordered his release, but imposed a restriction on him not to leave his place of residence without the permission of the Prosecutor's Office. The court considered that it was unclear whether the applicant's confession was given voluntarily. Assessing it in the light of the other evidence and witnesses' statements, the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the applicant. 17. The Prosecutor's Office appealed against the judgment on 18 December 2001. 18. It is unclear how many hearings were conducted before the Plovdiv Court of Appeals. 19. In a judgment of 20 September 2004 the Plovdiv Court of Appeals quashed the lower-court's judgment and examined the case on the merits. It found the applicant guilty of murder with extreme viciousness, sentenced him to seventeen years' imprisonment and ordered that he pay damages to the victim's family. In reaching its decision, the Plovdiv Court of Appeals found that the first-instance court had given too much weight to the applicant's assertions that his confession had been extracted under duress, which it considered to be unsubstantiated. In addition, it found the applicant's version of the events on the night of the murder to be in contradiction with the other evidence in the case and to be in conflict with his actions on the next day when he tried to hide the clothes he had worn on the previous night and, subsequently, when he presented the police with other garments for examination. 20. On an unspecified date the applicant filed a cassation appeal against the judgment. 21. It is unclear whether and when the applicant's appeal was examined by the Supreme Court of Cassation. 22. The applicant was arrested by the police on 11 December 1997 and questioned. 23. On the next day, 12 December 1997, he was detained on remand by order of an investigator, which was confirmed by the Prosecutor's Office later on the same day. The applicant was assisted by a State-appointed attorney. The grounds for detaining him on remand, as stated in the decision of the investigator, were that “there is a danger that the charged may abscond or re-offend”. 24. The applicant's detention was confirmed by a prosecutor on 11 May 1998 without citing any grounds. 25. At the latest, the trial stage of the criminal proceedings against the applicant began on 14 October 1999. 26. The applicant made several unsuccessful appeals against his detention. Information was provided only about some of them. 27. The applicant's appeals dating from 18 June, 2 September and some time at the beginning of November 1999 were dismissed by the Plovdiv Regional Court on 13 July, 15 September and 5 November 1999, respectively. Separately, an appeal dated 16 September 1999 was rejected on the next day by a judge-rapporteur of the Plovdiv Regional Court because he found that it had been filed only one day after the court had ruled on a previous appeal and considered that there was a lack of new circumstances justifying a new right of appeal. 28. In each of his appeals, the applicant petitioned for his release and argued that there was no risk that he would abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation, because he had a permanent address, had no prior criminal record, was the main breadwinner in the family, the financial and living conditions of his wife and children had worsened, the two-year maximum period of pre-trial detention under Section 152 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) was being violated and, in any case, that there was insufficient evidence that he had perpetrated the offence. 29. In its decisions to dismiss the applicant's appeals the Plovdiv Regional Court found that there was a risk that the applicant might abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation essentially because he was charged with a serious intentional offence. In respect of the claimed violation of the two-year maximum period of pre-trial detention the court found that it had not been exceeded because that period concerned only detention pending the investigation stage of the proceedings and was not applicable to detention at the trial stage. 30. The Plovdiv Regional Court explicitly refused to examine the specific evidence in the case as to whether there was a reasonable suspicion against the applicant. In its decision of 13 July 1999 it stated that “[t]he court does not find it necessary to consider the evidence in substance....” 31. Similarly in its decision of 15 September 1999 it considered that “[t]he court cannot go into the specifics of the case and examine the collected evidence in the context of the [present] proceedings....” 32. On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant filed another appeal against his detention under the rules introduced on 1 January 2000. 33. On 11 May 2000 the Plovdiv Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, with reasoning similar to that contained in the previous decisions of the Plovdiv Regional Court. 34. On 29 August 2001 the applicant appealed before the Supreme Court of Cassation against the aforementioned decision of the Plovdiv Court of Appeals of 11 May 2000. The basis for the appeal was paragraph 19 of the Amendments to the CCP promulgated on 27 April 2001. 35. On 24 September 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to initiate cassation proceedings. It found that it was not competent to review the lawfulness of a detention at the trial stage. 36. The applicant was released on 3 December 2001 by virtue of the judgment of the Plovdiv Regional Court.

4. The applicants were born in 1931 and 1958 and live in Oulu and Espoo respectively. 5. The applicants are father and son. On 17 June 2000 they were involved in an incident in which the first applicant was attacked by a group of men. The second applicant went to his rescue. They both sustained injuries and the second applicant's camera and mobile phone were broken. 6. The applicants filed a criminal complaint with the police on that same date. On the following day, one of the alleged attackers filed a criminal complaint against the second applicant alleging that he had kicked and hit him during the incident. 7. On 19 June 2000 the police questioned the second applicant as an injured party. He then informed the police that he would make a claim for damages in the court proceedings. At the end of the interview the police took a brief statement from the second applicant in respect of the criminal complaint filed against him. He did not contest the alleged conduct but maintained that it had been justified. 8. On 6 July 2000 the police questioned the first applicant as an injured party. He also informed the police about his intention to make a claim for damages in the court proceedings. 9. On 19 March 2003 the second applicant was again questioned by the police. He was first heard as a suspect and then as a victim. 10. On 8 July 2003 the public prosecutor filed an application for a summons with the Iisalmi District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). Charges were brought against two persons, L. and R., for robbery. R. was also charged with having physically assaulted the second applicant. The second applicant, for his part, was charged with having physically assaulted L. The applicants later joined the charges as far as they were the alleged victims. 11. On 23 September 2003 the first applicant submitted to the court a specified claim for damages. Apparently the second applicant also filed such a claim prior to the trial. 12. On 4 May 2005 the District Court held an oral hearing during which it received witness testimonies and written evidence. 13. On 1 June 2005 the court issued its judgment. It found that L. and R. had used physical violence against the first applicant. They were convicted of assault and sentenced to a fine respectively. They were also ordered to pay the first applicant some EUR 400 in damages and the second applicant EUR 300 for the camera. The court further found that the second applicant had physically assaulted L. for the purpose of defending his father. As he had used more violence than had been necessary in the circumstances, he was convicted of assault and sentenced to a 30 days' conditional prison term. He was also ordered to pay damages to L. The court dismissed the charge concerning the alleged assault against the second applicant for lack of evidence. 14. Both applicants appealed against the judgment to the Itä-Suomi Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) renewing their initial claims regarding punishment and damages, in so far as they had been rejected by the District Court. The second applicant also requested that he be acquitted or, in the alternative, exempted from punishment and liability in damages. On 18 September 2007, having held an oral hearing, the court came to the same conclusion as the District Court. It upheld the lower court's judgment giving some further reasons of its own. 15. On 11 April 2008 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicants leave to appeal.

8. The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Cielcza, Poland. 9. The realities of the international situation following the end of the Second World War prevented the Republic of Poland from asserting any claims arising out of persecution of its citizens, including as forced labourers, by Nazi Germany. 10. In the period immediately following the Second World War, Poland did not conclude a specific agreement with Germany regarding the issue of reparations. It relied on the Potsdam Agreement of 1 August 1945, concluded by the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 11. On 27 February 1953 the London Agreement on German External Debts (the London Debt Agreement) was concluded by the United States of America, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. Under this Agreement, consideration of claims arising out of the Second World War by countries that had been at war with, or were occupied by, Germany, and by nationals of such countries, against the Reich or agencies of the Reich was deferred until the final settlement of the issue of reparations. 12. On 23 August 1953, the day after a similar declaration by the government of the Soviet Union, the government of Poland declared that it renounced any claims against Germany in respect of war reparations as of 1 January 1954. In a declaration of 27 September 1969 made at the United Nations, the government of Poland clarified that the renouncement of 1953 did not affect individual claims arising out of unlawful acts. 13. It was only after the conclusion of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with respect to Germany of 12 September 1990 (the so‑called Two‑Plus‑Four Treaty) and the conclusion of two treaties between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Poland in 1990[1] and 1991[2] that the issue of persons persecuted by the Nazi regime was addressed in the bilateral agreement of 16 October 1991 (see paragraph 28 below). 14. The applicant was subjected to forced labour during the Second World War on the territory of occupied Poland. In February and March 1941 he worked on a German farm near Cielcza. Subsequently, from April 1941 to April/May 1944, the applicant worked as a forest labourer in Cielcza. Finally, he was relocated to an area situated 200 kilometres from his habitual place of residence, where he was required to reinforce German defences from May/June 1944 to 26 January 1945. In February 1944 the applicant reached the age of 16. 15. On 20 October 1993 the applicant applied to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation (Fundacja Polsko‑Niemieckie Pojednanie – “the Foundation”) for compensation on account of his forced labour from the funds contributed by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany under the Agreement of 16 October 1991 (see paragraphs 28-29 below). On 2 February 1994 the Foundation’s Verification Commission (Komisja Weryfikacyjna), having regard to a document issued by the social security authorities, established that the applicant had been subjected to forced labour from February 1941 to January 1945 and awarded him 1,050 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation. This payment was granted within the framework of the “primary payments scheme” (wypłaty podstawowe). The issue of deportation was apparently not addressed in the decision. The applicant’s subsequent appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Appeal Verification Commission (Odwoławcza Komisja Weryfikacyjna) on an unspecified date. The Appeal Verification Commission found that the amount of payment granted to the applicant had been calculated correctly. 16. On an unspecified date in 1999 the Foundation’s management board (Zarząd Fundacji) adopted Resolution no. 29/99, which introduced a deportation requirement for claimants who had been forced labourers. The resolution also provided that those claimants who had been subjected to forced labour as children under the age of 16 could be granted compensation regardless of whether the deportation condition was met (see paragraph 35 below). 17. On 2 March 2000, following the adoption of Resolution no. 29/99, the Foundation’s Verification Commission granted the applicant a supplementary payment of PLN 365. The decision on supplementary payment related to the applicant’s forced labour as a child under the age of 16 ( from April 1941 to February 1944). Thus, the period of forced labour from March 1944 to January 1945 was not taken into account because the deportation condition as defined in Resolution no. 29/99 had not been met. The period of forced labour from February to March 1941 was not acknowledged in the absence of appropriate evidence. 18. On 12 March 2000 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Appeal Verification Commission, challenging the amount of compensation granted. It appears that the applicant complained that the period of his forced labour between May/June 1944 and 26 January 1945, carried out in particularly harsh conditions connected with his relocation, was not taken into account by the Verification Commission. Having received no reply to his appeal, the applicant made further enquiries with the Foundation on 31 October 2000 and 3 January 2001. 19. In the meantime, the applicant had lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman regarding the Foundation’s inactivity. On 4 April 2001 the Ombudsman informed the applicant that, regrettably, he was not in a position to question the lawfulness of resolutions adopted by the Polish‑German Reconciliation Foundation or any other foundation. The Polish‑German Reconciliation Foundation was established in accordance with the Foundations Act of 6 April 1984. In this particular case, the Foundation operated under the supervision of the Minister of the State Treasury. However, the Ombudsman could not interfere with the Foundation’s actions as long as they complied with its statute and other legal regulations. The Ombudsman also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision of 31 March 1998, which refused to recognise the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation as a public administration body (see paragraphs 41‑42 below). 20. By a letter of 24 April 2001, the President of the Foundation’s Appeal Verification Commission informed the applicant that, under the Foundation’s internal regulations in force at the material time (Resolution no. 29/99), only forced labourers deported to the Third Reich or to an area occupied by the German Reich (with the exception of the territory of occupied Poland) were eligible for compensation. Finally, the applicant was informed that no further appeal lay against the decision of the Appeal Verification Commission. 21. Nevertheless, on an unspecified later date, the applicant lodged a complaint against the decision of the Appeal Verification Commission of 24 April 2001 with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny). It appears that in his complaint the applicant also challenged Resolution no. 29/99. 22. On 14 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, considering it inadmissible in law. It relied on Decision no. OPS 3/01, adopted by the Supreme Administrative Court on 3 December 2001 (see paragraph 45 below). 23. In a letter dated 23 September 2002, the Minister of the State Treasury informed the applicant that, in order for a forced labourer to be granted compensation, it was necessary for him to comply with the deportation requirement as specified in Resolution no. 29/99 of the Foundation’s management board. 24. On 21 November 2000 the applicant applied to the Foundation for compensation under the scheme for slave and forced labourers (the second compensation scheme), established under the Joint Statement of 17 July 2000, the German Law of 2 August 2000 on the creation of the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future Foundation (“the German Foundation Act”) and the subsequent Agreement of 16 February 2001 between the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future Foundation and the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation (see paragraph 37 below). On 17 April 2001 the Foundation’s Verification Commission rejected his request on the ground that he did not satisfy the deportation requirement set out in section 11(1)2 of the German Foundation Act. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the decision of the Verification Commission of 17 April 2001. The applicant’s subsequent complaints to the Minister of the State Treasury were to no avail. 25. In a letter dated 28 June 2005, the Foundation’s management board, referring to the Court’s admissibility decision in the present case, informed the applicant that its Resolution no. 29/99 of 18 August 1999 concerning interpretation of the term “deportation” had never restricted or violated his rights to receive a benefit, for the following reasons: (a) the applicant did not comply with the deportation requirement specified in Resolution no. 27/92 of 17 August 1992, under which deportation was defined as “deportation outside one’s place of permanent residence into the territory of the Third Reich combined with performing labour for the benefit of the Third Reich”; (b) the granting of compensation within the framework of the so-called primary payments for the period between February 1941 and January 1945 had been in breach of the Foundation’s regulations, namely Resolution no. 27/92; (c) thus, the applicant should have received compensation solely for the period up to February 1944, namely, for the period until his 16th birthday, since he had never complied with the deportation requirement as specified in Resolution no. 27/92; (d) the Foundation’s error committed in respect of the primary payment was rectified within the framework of the supplementary payments, and thus it could not be said that the applicant’s rights were restricted or breached. 26. The applicant was further informed that, since he had resided and performed forced labour on the territory of Wielkopolska province which, known as Warthegau province at the time, was annexed by the Third Reich in October 1939, the obligation to perform forced labour in the area of the applicant’s residence (his first workplace was located 10 km from his place of residence and the second – Cielcza forest – was in his habitual place of residence) could not be considered as deportation with a view to performing forced labour. Similarly, the obligation to reinforce German defences on Polish territories annexed by the Third Reich was not considered “deportation” under Resolution no. 27/92. Lastly, the applicant was informed that in cases such as his, when the Foundation had made an error in favour of a claimant, the consequences of that error were borne by the Foundation, which had never claimed reimbursement of the overpaid amounts.

4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Somlóvásárhely, Hungary. 5. On 6 May 1993 the applicant's wife requested the Ajka District Court to hold a preliminary hearing with a view to instituting divorce proceedings. In turn, on 7 July 1993 the applicant brought an action before the District Court claiming maintenance for the couple's son, who was at the time in the applicant's care. The District Court held hearings on the maintenance claim on 13 September and 3 November 1993. On the latter date the applicant's wife formally filed for divorce. The divorce proceedings were subsequently joined to the claim for maintenance. 6. In the joined proceedings, hearings took place on 27 April, 17 June, 16 September and 31 October 1994, 3 February and 5 April 1995. 7. On the latter date the District Court pronounced, in a partial decision, the couple's divorce. In line with the parties' agreement, it granted the mother custody of their son. The court ordered the applicant to pay maintenance, regulated his right of access to the boy and ordered the parties to share the use of their flat which was in common ownership. The court relied on the testimonies of numerous witnesses, including a social worker, the applicant's two step-children born out of the mother's previous marriage, and the couple's son. 8. On the applicant's appeal of 12 May 1995, the Veszprém County Regional Court held a hearing on 26 September 1995. At a hearing on 10 October 1995 the Regional Court allowed the applicant's appeal and amended the District Court's decision in the part concerning the amount of maintenance and the details of his access rights. 9. On 13 December 1995 the proceedings were resumed before the District Court in respect of the division of the matrimonial property. A hearing was held on 13 December 1995. A further hearing took place on 21 February 1996. On the latter date the District Court decided to obtain various expert opinions. 10. On 31 May and 23 July 1996, respectively, property and valuation experts submitted their opinions. 11. At a hearing on 18 October 1996 the District Court appointed a motor-vehicle expert to prepare an opinion. On 12 December 1996 the expert was urged to submit his opinion. On 31 December 1996 the expert informed the court that the applicant could not be located at the address notified to him. On 17 February 1997 the expert was requested to submit an opinion as soon as possible. On 27 February 1997 the expert submitted his opinion. 12. Further hearings were held on 28 April, 12 May and 17 November 1997. Meanwhile, on 6 June 1997 the applicant requested further expert evidence to be taken. Although it experienced difficulties in finding an expert jeweller, the District Court finally appointed one on 27 February 1998 and requested the parties to contact him. On 30 July 1998 the expert submitted his opinion. 13. On 28 September 1998 an expert psychologist submitted his opinion. A hearing scheduled for 28 October 1998 was adjourned at the applicant's request. 14. The next hearing took place on 20 January 1999. The District Court ordered the property expert to complete his opinion of 31 May 1996, taking into account any possible changes which might have occurred in the meantime. On 19 March 1999 the District Court requested the expert to proceed as a matter of urgency. On 24 March 1999 the expert submitted his opinion, which was based on an on-site inspection of the property. 15. Further hearings took place on 27 September and 25 October 1999. On the latter date both the applicant and his representative failed to appear before the court. Meanwhile, the District Court made enquiries with the parties' bank as regards the mortgage situation of their flat. On 29 October 1999 the court requested the parties to waive their rights to secrecy in respect of their bank details. The waivers were sent to the bank on 17 November 1999. On 28 December 1999 the District Court made a further enquiry with the bank as regards payments transferred from the parties' bank account to cover housing expenses. On 24 January 2000 the District Court ordered the applicant to submit his waiver in the form required by the bank. The bank submitted the requested banking details on 27 March 2000. 16. At the hearings of April and 22 May 2000 several witnesses were heard on the use of the parties' flat. On the latter date the District Court carried out an inspection of the flat. 17. On 13 December 2000 the District Court ruled on the division of the matrimonial property. On 20 and 27 December 2000, respectively, the applicant and the defendant appealed. 18. The Veszprém County Regional Court held hearings on 20 February, 1 and 20 March 2001. During this period the parties were involved in negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement on the sale of their flat. On the parties' joint request of 28 March 2001, the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings on 3 April 2001 and annulled the decision of 13 December 2000.

9. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in İzmir. 10. Until 1985 he lived in Germany, where he completed part of his schooling. He subsequently moved to Turkey, where he continued his education, eventually going on to university. 11. In 1993 he became an active member of the Association of Opponents of War (Savaş Karşıtları Derneği – “the SKD”), founded in 1992. Until late 1993 he represented the SKD at various international conferences in different countries. After the SKD was dissolved in November 1993 the İzmir Association of Opponents of War (İzmir Savaş Karşıtları Derneği – “the ISKD”) was founded and the applicant served as its chairman from 1994 to 1998. 12. In August 1995 the applicant was called up. Invoking his pacifist convictions, he refused to perform military service and publicly burned his call-up papers at a press conference in İzmir on 1 September 1995. 13. On 8 October 1996 he was arrested. On 18 October 1996 he was indicted by the military prosecutor attached to the Ankara Military Court of the General Staff (“the General Staff Court”), under Article 155 of the Criminal Code and Article 58 of the Military Penal Code, on a charge of inciting conscripts to evade military service. 14. In a judgment of 28 January 1997 the Ankara General Staff Court sentenced the applicant, on the basis of the indictment of 18 October 1996, to six months’ imprisonment and to a fine. The court also found that the applicant was a deserter and made an order requesting the military prosecutor attached to that court to enlist him. 15. On 3 March 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. In his grounds of appeal he relied on, among other provisions, Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, claiming that he was a conscientious objector. 16. In a judgment of 3 July 1997 the Military Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance judgment. 17. In the meantime, on 22 November 1996, the applicant was transferred to the 9th Regiment, attached to the Bilecik gendarmerie command. He refused to wear military uniform or carry out the orders of the regiment’s commanding officer. He was detained in the regimental prison, where he refused to wear prison uniform. 18. On 26 November 1996 the military prosecutor at the Court of the Eskişehir Tactical Air Forces Command (“the Command Court”) indicted the applicant on a charge of “persistent disobedience” and sought his conviction under Article 87 of the Military Penal Code. 19. Ruling on the applicant’s refusal to wear prison uniform, the Command Court, in a judgment of 2 December 1996 after urgent proceedings, restricted his right to receive visitors for fifteen days, as a disciplinary measure. 20. Ultimately, in a judgment of 6 March 1997, the Command Court sentenced him to five months’ imprisonment for persistent disobedience. 21. On 4 July 1997 the Military Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 6 March 1997. 22. In the meantime, the applicant had failed to rejoin his regiment after being released on 27 December 1996. He was arrested and remanded in custody. 23. He was indicted on 7 March 1997 by the military prosecutor at the Command Court, on charges of desertion and “persistent disobedience”. 24. In a judgment of 23 October 1997 the Command Court sentenced the applicant to ten months’ imprisonment and to a fine. 25. In the meantime, on 29 May 1997, he had been released on the condition that he rejoined his regiment on 31 May to perform his military service. As he failed to do so he was arrested on 9 October 1997 and transferred to Eskişehir prison to serve the sentence imposed by the Command Court on 6 March 1997. 26. In an indictment of 16 October 1997 the military prosecutor at the Command Court called for the applicant’s conviction for desertion between 31 May 1997 and 9 October 1997. 27. In a judgment of 22 January 1998 the Command Court sentenced the applicant to ten months’ imprisonment on the basis of the charges in the bill of indictment. 28. In a judgment of 30 September 1998 the Military Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 22 January 1998. 29. On 26 January 1998 the applicant was escorted to his regiment at Bilecik. He was arrested for refusing to wear military uniform. 30. In a judgment of 11 June 1998 the Command Court sentenced him to seven months and fifteen days’ imprisonment on account of incidents that had occurred on 28 January 1998. 31. On 7 October 1998 the Military Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 11 June 1998. 32. After being escorted back to his regiment on 20 March 1998, the applicant was arrested on 21 March 1998 for refusing to wear his military uniform. 33. In a judgment of 4 May 1998 the Command Court sentenced him to seven months and fifteen days’ imprisonment for “persistent disobedience” on 20 and 21 March 1998. 34. In a judgment of 7 October 1998 the Military Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 4 May 1998. 35. In the meantime, on 4 May 1998, the applicant was sent back to his regiment, where he refused to wear military uniform. 36. In a judgment of 11 June 1998 the Command Court sentenced him to seven months and fifteen days’ imprisonment on account of the incidents of 4 May 1998. 37. In a judgment of 7 October 1998 the Military Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance judgment of 11 June 1998. 38. The applicant was released on 24 November 1998 and transferred to his regiment, but once again refused to wear military uniform. 39. He was prosecuted and arrested on account of the incidents of 24 November 1998, and on 26 November 1998 the Command Court sentenced him to seven months and fifteen days’ imprisonment. 40. In a judgment of 22 September 1999 the military Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 26 November 1998. 41. The applicant served a total of 701 days in prison as a result of the above sentences, with the exception of the prison sentence imposed after his last conviction. He is wanted by the security forces for the execution of his sentence and is currently in hiding. He is no longer active in the association or in any other political activity. He has no official address and has broken off all contact with the authorities. He has been accommodated by his fiancée’s family. He has been unable to marry her legally or to recognise the son born to them.